Rmajor v. McDaniel

Full title: RICKEY TODD MAJOR, Petitioner, v. E.K. McDANIEL, et al., Respondents

Court: United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Jan 29, 2009

3:99-cv-00237-LRH-RAM (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2009)

Opinion

3:99-cv-00237-LRH-RAM.

January 29, 2009

ORDER

LARRY HICKS, District Judge

Before the Court is respondents' second, third, and fourth motions for enlargement of time in which to file an answer or otherwise respond to the remaining claims contained in the petition for writ of habeas corpus (docket #77, #78, and #79). Respondents' then filed a motion for leave to file a pleading in excess of thirty pages (docket #80), and an answer to the petition (docket #81). The Court finds that respondents' motions were made in good faith, not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there was good cause for the extensions of time. Moreover, the answer was filed within the time contemplated by the fourth motion for enlargement of time. The Court will grant the motions for enlargement of time, and will treat the answer as timely filed. The Court will also grant the motion to file a pleading in excess of thirty pages.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents' motions for enlargement of time (docket #77, #78, and #79) are GRANTED. The answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be treated as timely filed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' motion for leave to file a pleading in excess of thirty pages is GRANTED.