Opinion
3:17-cv-00515-HDM-CLB
02-01-2023
MARCO GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. CALVIN JOHNSON, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this habeas corpus action, after a 60-day period following the filing of Respondents' answer, Petitioner Marco Guzman, who is represented by appointed counsel, was due to file a reply to the answer by January 31, 2023. See Order entered January 19, 2021 (ECF No. 54) (scheduling order).
On January 31, 2023, Guzman filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 86), requesting a 62-day extension of time, to April 3, 2023, for his reply. Guzman's counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because this case is relatively complex, because he was only recently reassigned this case, and because of his obligations in other cases. Guzman's counsel states that Respondents do not oppose the motion for extension of time.
The Court finds that the motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the requested extension of time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 86) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including April 3, 2023, to file his reply to Respondents' answer. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered January 19, 2021 (ECF No. 54) will remain in effect.