HERNANDEZ v. FILSON

No. 3:09-cv-00545-LRH-WGC.

FERNANDO NAVARRO HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. TIMOTHY FILSON, et al., Respondents.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 535 Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Fernando Navarro Hernandez, Petitioner, represented by Tiffany L. Nocon , Federal Public Defender.

Fernando Navarro Hernandez, Petitioner, represented by Benjamin H. McGee, III , Federal Public Defender.

Adam Paul Laxalt, Respondent, represented by Jeffrey M. Conner , Nevada Attorney General.

Timothy Filson, Respondent, represented by Jeffrey M. Conner , Nevada Attorney General.


ORDER

LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.

In this capital habeas corpus action, on January 11, 2017, the petitioner, Fernando Navarro Hernandez, filed a motion for leave of court to supplement his third amended petition (ECF No. 133). Respondents filed an opposition to that motion on February 1, 2017 (ECF No. 140). Hernandez's reply, in support of his motion, was then due February 8, 2017. See LR 7-2(b) (7 days for reply in support of motion); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (after December 1, 2016, extra three days is no longer added to time for response after service of document by electronic means).

On February 8, 2017, Hernandez filed a motion for extension of time to file his reply (ECF No. 142), requesting an extension to February 15, 2017. Hernandez's counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of his work on another case. Respondents do not oppose the motion for extension of time. The court finds that respondents' motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay. The court will grant the one-week extension of time, as requested.

Counsel states that he does not anticipate filing a motion for a second extension of time. Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 142), p. 3. Counsel should take note: the court will not further extend this deadline absent extraordinary circumstances.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 142) is GRANTED. Petitioner shall have until and including February 15, 2017, to file a reply in support of his motion to supplement his third amended petition.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases