Opinion
2:20-cv-01852-CDS-VCF
11-27-2023
Corry Alexis Hawkins, Petitioner v. Calvin Johnson, et al., Respondents
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER SECOND AMENDED PETITION
[ECF NO. 83]
CRISTINA D. SILVA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Respondents seek an extension of time to file their answer to the second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 83. Respondents seek a 60-day extension of time to file their answer. In October 2023, the court granted respondents a 31-day extension of time to file their answer and warned respondents that further extensions of time are not likely to be granted absent compelling circumstances and a strong showing of good cause why the briefing could not be completed within the extend time allowed despite the exercise of due diligence. ECF No. 82.
Habeas actions are civil actions under federal practice and are subject to the reporting requirements of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (“CJRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 471, et seq. Given the age of this case, respondents will have a final extension until January 12, 2024, to file their answer. Given the court's case management responsibilities under the CJRA, moving forward, counsel will be required to prioritize the briefing of the motion to dismiss in this case over later-filed matters.
The CJRA provides that each United States District Court must develop a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan to facilitate the deliberate adjudication of civil cases on the merits, monitor and improve litigation management, and reduce cost and delay. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 (noting the rules should be implemented to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of each case). The CJRA mandates the early and on-going judicial management of case progress. 28 U.S.C. § 473(a).
It is therefore ordered that respondents' sixth motion to extend time [ECF No. 83] is granted. Respondents have until January 12, 2024, to file their answer.
It is further ordered that counsel must prioritize the briefing in this case over later-filed matters. Further extensions of time are not likely to be granted absent compelling circumstances and a strong showing of good cause why the briefing could not be completed within the extended time allowed despite the exercise of due diligence.