Opinion
3:17-cv-00681-MMD-CLB
02-24-2023
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. 62.) McKnight's counsel explains that she needs a significant extension because Lovelock Correctional Center (“LCC”) personnel continue to refuse to schedule a confidential call with her client. Thus, she needs to travel to LCC to personally meet with McKnight and review documents. Travel through that area is difficult in the winter, with frequent road closures. (Id.)
The Court finds that an extension of time is warranted. However, the Court will not grant a 90-day extension, particularly after the Court previously granted a lengthy extension. (ECF No. 59.) The Court notes that McKnight did not seek an extension until the date the response was due. Additionally, while winter weather is good cause for an extension here, McKnight has not demonstrated that such a long extension of time is required. Accordingly, the Court grants an extension of 30 days. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court is unlikely to grant any further extensions. ///
It is therefore ordered that McKnight's unopposed second motion for extension of time to file a response to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 62) is granted in part and denied in part. The deadline to file the response is extended to March 27, 2023.