Opinion
2:21-cv-00942-APG-EJY
08-17-2023
LEE REED, Petitioner, v. TIM GARRETT, WARDEN, et al., Respondents.
AARON D. FORD Attorney General JOHN C. DORAME Deputy Attorney General.
AARON D. FORD Attorney General JOHN C. DORAME Deputy Attorney General.
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE REPLY TO PETITIONER'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (SECOND REQUEST)
Respondents, by and through legal counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and John C. Dorame Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an order granting them a fourteen (14) day enlargement of time, or up to and including Wednesday, August 30, 2023, to file and serve their response to the reply to the first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus of Petitioner, Lee Reed (“Reed”).
This motion is based on the provisions of Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the attached Declaration of Counsel, as well as all other papers, documents, records, pleadings, and materials on file herein.
This is Respondents' second request for an enlargement of time to respond to the reply to Reed's petition. Respondents make this motion in good faith and not for the purpose of unnecessary delay.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
DECLARATION OF COUNSEL
I, JOHN C. DORAME, hereby state, based on personal knowledge and/or information and belief, that the assertions of this declaration are true:
1. I am a Deputy Attorney General in the Post-Conviction Division of the Nevada Attorney General's Office, and I make this declaration on behalf of Respondents' motion for enlargement of time.
2. On March 6, 2023, Respondents filed their answer to Petitioner Lee Reed's (“Reed”) petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 40.
3. On June 16, 2023, Reed filed his Reply to Respondents' answering brief. ECF No. 44. Pursuant to this Court's scheduling order, a response to the reply is currently due August 16, 2023. By this motion, I am requesting an enlargement of time of fourteen (14) days to file a response to Reed's reply. This is my second request for enlargement.
4. During the last several weeks, I have been involved in defending various federal and state petitions, some of which have already been extended or no further extensions are permitted. These also include cases that have been recently reassigned due to ongoing staffing shortages at the Office of the Attorney General. Among the deadlines were: a response to petition in Angin v. Warden, HDSP (A-23-871405-W); a response to petition in Eason v. State of Nevada (A-23-871409-W); a response to petition in Lopez v. State of Nevada (A-23-871390); an opposition to a motion to overturn sentence in Barao v. State of Nevada (USDC 2:22-cv-01954-JAD-NJK); a reply to a motion to dismiss in Perez v. Warden (USDC 2:20-cv-00554-APG-EJY); a motion to dismiss in Burns v. Russell (USDC 3:22-cv-00021-MMD-CLB); a response to a motion to stay in Espinoza v. Johnson (USDC 3:21-cv-00198-MMD-CSD); and an answer to a petition in Epps v. NDOC (USDC 2:22-cv-00204-GMN-VCF). As such, I request a fourteen (14) day enlargement of time, up to and including August 30, 2023, to respond to the reply.
5. This motion for enlargement of time is made in good faith and not for the purpose of unduly delaying the ultimate disposition of this case. As noted, several Deputy Attorney Generals in our division have either transferred to other divisions or left the Attorney General's Office in the past several months. The division remains understaffed, and the workload continues to increase.
6. I contacted petitioner's counsel, Christopher R. Oram, Esq. who indicated he has no objection to this enlargement.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Declarant herein certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.