From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKnight v. Baker

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Nov 23, 2022
3:17-cv-00681-MMD-CLB (D. Nev. Nov. 23, 2022)

Opinion

3:17-cv-00681-MMD-CLB

11-23-2022

DERRICK LAMAR MCKNIGHT, Petitioner, v. WARDEN BAKER, et al., Respondents.


ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Derrick Lamar McKnight seeks an extension of time to respond to Respondents' motion to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 58.) McKnight's counsel, the Federal Public Defender, explains that she needs to review documents with McKnight. However, Lovelock Correctional Center will not schedule a confidential call; thus, she needs to arrange to travel to Lovelock to personally meet with McKnight. (Id.) The Court finds that the request is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and therefore, good cause exists to grant the motion.

It is therefore ordered that Petitioner's unopposed first motion for extension of time to file a response to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 58) is granted. The deadline to file the response is extended to February 23, 2022.


Summaries of

McKnight v. Baker

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Nov 23, 2022
3:17-cv-00681-MMD-CLB (D. Nev. Nov. 23, 2022)
Case details for

McKnight v. Baker

Case Details

Full title:DERRICK LAMAR MCKNIGHT, Petitioner, v. WARDEN BAKER, et al., Respondents.

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Nov 23, 2022

Citations

3:17-cv-00681-MMD-CLB (D. Nev. Nov. 23, 2022)