Opinion
2:20-cv-01267-GMN-NJK
02-28-2023
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PATTERSON, Petitioner, v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, SR., et al., Respondents.
ORDER
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This habeas matter is before the Court on Respondents' second Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 84). Respondents seek a 45-day extension of time to file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss. 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.
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).
Given the age of this case and the length of time the motion to dismiss has been pending, Respondents will have until March 13, 2023 to file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss. 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.
It is therefore ordered that Respondents second Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 84) is granted in part and denied in part. Respondents have until March 13, 2023, to file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss.
It is further ordered that counsel must prioritize the briefing of the motion to dismiss 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.