Opinion
2:17-cv-01620-JAD-VCF
08-31-2022
FRANK M. PECK, Petitioner v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents
ORDER GRANTING NUNC PRO TUNC EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE MOTION TO DISMISS TO OCTOBER 31, 2022 [ECF NOS. 106, 116]
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE JENNIFER A. DORSEY
Both parties in Frank M. Peck's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action seek extensions of time. Respondents move for a nunc pro tunc one-day extension of time to file their response to the petition. Peck asks for an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss.Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that respondents' fourth motion for extension of time to file a response to the petition [ECF No. 106] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
ECF No. 106. Counsel for respondents indicates that she inadvertently electronically filed the response five minutes after the deadline on August 16, 2022, at 12:05 a.m. Id. at 2.
ECF No. 116.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's unopposed first motion for extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 116] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. The deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss is extended to October 31, 2022.