Opinion
2:13-cv-0655-JCM-DJA
04-08-2022
RANDOLPH L. MOORE, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM GITTERE, et al., Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 154)
JAMES C. MAHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this capital habeas corpus action, after a 120-day initial period, and extensions of time of 62, 30, 30, 60 and 62 days, the respondents were due to file an answer by April 11, 2022. See Order entered April 12, 2021 (ECF No. 143) (120 days for answer); Order entered August 4, 2021 (ECF No. 145) (62-day extension); Order entered November 1, 2021 (ECF No. 147) (30-day extension); Order entered November 8, 2021 (ECF No. 149) (30-day extension); Order entered December 16, 2021 (ECF No. 151) (60-day extension); Order entered March 1, 2022 (ECF No. 153) (62-day extension).
On April 6, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 154), requesting a further 60-day extension of time, to June 10, 2022. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of his obligations in other cases and time away from work. Petitioner does not oppose the motion for extension of time.
The Court finds that Respondents' 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 Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 154) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including June 10, 2022, to file their answer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will have 120 days to file a reply to Respondents' answer; in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the February 5, 2019, scheduling order (ECF No. 51), will remain in effect.