Opinion
3:22-cv-00101-LRH-CLB
02-16-2023
WESLIE MARTIN, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM REUBART, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Respondents have filed a motion for extension of time (second request) requesting an additional four days, up to and including February 14, 2023, to file and serve their answer to Petitioner Weslie Martin's petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 31.) Martin filed a response on February 14, 2023, indicating that he would be asking the Court to disallow the filing of Respondents' answer it was not filed by the end of the day. (ECF No. 33.) Respondents filed their answer on February 15, 2023, at 12:01 a.m. (ECF No. 32.) Due to the answer being filed 1 minute late, Respondents also filed a motion for extension of time (third request). (ECF No. 34.) The Court finds good cause to grant Respondents' motions for extension of time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents' motion for extension of time (second request) [ECF No. 31] and motion for extension of time (third request) [ECF No. 34] are granted nunc pro tunc. Respondents' answer (ECF No. 32) is considered timely filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner has up to and including March 17, 2023, to file a reply to Respondents' answer. 1