Opinion
2:21-cv-00948-ART-DJA
10-18-2023
TERRELL TORRY TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
ANNE R. TRAUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
In this habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Terrell Torry Taylor, represented by appointed counsel, filed a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 7, 2022. (ECF No. 42.) On July 3, 2023, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 52.) On August 31, 2023, Taylor filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 54.) Along with his opposition to the motion to dismiss, on August 31, 2023, Taylor also filed a motion to stay (ECF No. 55) and a motion for discovery (ECF No. 56).
Respondents were due on October 16, 2023, to file their reply to Taylor's opposition to their motion to dismiss, a response to Taylor's motion to stay, and a response to Taylor's motion for discovery. (See ECF No. 59.)
On October 16, 2023, Respondents filed three motions for extension of time (ECF Nos. 60, 61, 62), requesting extensions of time to October 30, 2023, for their reply in support of their motion to dismiss and their responses to Taylor's motion to stay and motion for discovery. (Respondents could have requested all three extensions in one motion, saving time and resources.)
Respondents' counsel states in her motions for extensions of time that the extensions are necessary because of her obligations in other cases. Respondents' counsel represents that Taylor does not oppose the motions for extensions of time.
The Court finds that Respondents' motions for extensions of time are made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extensions of time requested. The Court will grant the extensions of time as requested.
It is therefore ordered that Respondents' Motions for Enlargement of Time (ECF Nos. 60, 61, 62) are granted. Respondents will have until and including October 30, 2023, to file their reply to Petitioner's opposition to their motion to dismiss, a response to Petitioner's motion to stay, and a response to Petitioner's motion for discovery. Petitioner will then have 20 days to file a reply in support of his motion to stay and a reply in support of his motion for discovery. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered June 6, 2022 (ECF No. 37) will remain in effect.