Christy v. Oliver

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00132
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Rene L. Valladares Federal Public Defender 2 Nevada State Bar No. 11479 3 *Andréa L. Vieira Assistant Federal Public Defender 4 Nevada State Bar No. 15667 411 E. Bonneville Ave., Ste. 250 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 6 (702) 388-6577 Andrea_Vieira@fd.org 7 8 *Attorney for Petitioner Derrell Lee Christy, Jr. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 Derrell Lee Christy, Jr., Case No. 2:21-cv-00132-APG-BNW 12 Petitioner, ORDER granting 13 v. 14 William Hutchings, et al., Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to 15 Respondents. Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss1 16 (First Request) 17 Petitioner Derrell Christy respectfully moves this Court for an extension of 18 time of 60 days from February 21, 2025, to and including April 22, 2025, to file 19 Petitioner’s opposition to Respondents’ second Motion to Dismiss. 20 This is the first request to extend this deadline. This request for an extension 21 is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay. Good cause exists for the 22 requested extension because of (1) the complex and voluminous record in this case, 23 (2) the need for newly assigned counsel to thoroughly review the materials, (3) 24 unforeseen office disruptions, and (4) the necessity of meeting with Mr. Christy before 25 finalizing the opposition. 26 27 1 ECF No. 54. 1 Respondents do not oppose this request. Given the complexity of this case and 2 the procedural posture, this extension is necessary to ensure effective assistance of 3 counsel and allow for a comprehensive response to the motion to dismiss. 4 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 5 I. Brief Procedural History 6 This case has a complex procedural history spanning multiple courts and 7 thousands of pages of records. On January 10, 2017, Mr. Christy was sentenced to an 8 aggregate term of 10 to 40 years following his convictions for attempt murder, 9 attempt burglary, possession of a firearm by prohibited person, and related offenses. 10 Mr. Christy mailed his timely pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on or 11 about January 13, 2021.2 This Court appointed the Office of the Federal Public 12 Defender as counsel for Mr. Christy on January 27, 2021.3 13 On February 17, 2021, C.B. Kirschner entered her appearance as counsel for 14 Mr. Christy, filed a First Amended (protective) Petition, and sought leave to file a 15 Second Amended Petition.4 The Second Amended Petition was filed on November 30, 16 2021.5 17 18 Respondents filed their first Motion to Dismiss on April 22, 2022.6 The Motion 19 to Dismiss with exhibits totals over 2,000 pages.7 An Unopposed Motion for Stay was 20 filed on June 3, 2022.8 On June 23, 2022, this court granted the Motion for Stay and 21

22 2 ECF No. 1. 23 3 ECF No. 5. 24 4 ECF Nos. 7, 8, & 10.. 5 ECF No. 18. 25 6 ECF No. 27. 26 7 ECF No. 27 and ECF No. 28-00 through ECF No. 36-10 27 8 ECF No. 42. 1 denied the Motion to Dismiss as moot.9 As a result, this matter was stayed pending 2 the result of Mr. Christy’s state court proceedings.10 3 Mr. Christy filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Eighth Judicial 4 District Court on June 2, 2022.11 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order 5 were entered on March 3, 2023.12 6 Mr. Christy then filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court 7 on April 3, 2023.13 The Order of Affirmance was entered on May 15, 202414 and the 8 Remittitur was issued on June 10, 2024.15 9 II. Good Cause Exists for the Requested Extension 10 Under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts have broad 11 discretion to grant extensions of time upon a showing of good cause. 16 Rule 6 is to be 12 liberally construed to facilitate resolution of cases on the merits.17 13 The attorney that had been working on this case, Ms. Kirschner, took the case 14 through the state court proceedings. She left the office of the Federal Public Defender 15 on or about September 2024. I started with the FPD in October 2024 and entered my 16 17 18 9 ECF No. 44. 19 10 Id. 20 11 ECF No. 47-1 21 12 ECF No. 47-10 22 13 ECF No. 47-11 23 14 ECF No. 47-15. 24 15 ECF No. 47-16. 16 Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 25 1996). 26 17 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that requests for extensions should be granted in the absence of bad faith or 27 undue prejudice). 1 appearance in this matter on October 30, 2024.18 Respondents filed the second Motion 2 to Dismiss on December 23, 2024.19 3 I was out of the country for a pre-planned vacation over the holidays and did 4 not return until January 13, 2025 Since my return, our office has remained 5 inaccessible due to flood damage affecting multiple floors, followed by ongoing 6 construction. 7 While navigating joining the FPD and the learning curve of practicing habeas 8 law, dealing with the issues preventing us from being physically in the office and the 9 resultant delays in accessing case files, and learning all the cases to which I have 10 been assigned, I have been diligently going through the voluminous materials in this 11 case so that I can understand the facts and the procedural history. However, I need 12 13 more time to review the voluminous materials so that I can adequately respond to 14 the motion to dismiss. 15 In addition to needing more time to review nearly eight years of procedural 16 history spanning thousands of pages, I also need to meet with Mr. Christy. Since 17 starting at the FPD, I have made several trips to different prisons in Carson City, 18 Lovelock, and Las Vegas, to meet the various clients to whose cases I have been 19 assigned. Due to travel commitments for other cases, I have not yet been able to meet 20 with Mr. Christy, but I intend to do so before drafting the opposition. Meeting with 21 Mr. Christy is critical for accurately addressing procedural issues and ensuring a 22 well-supported opposition brief. 23 Moreover, responding to the Motion to Dismiss requires extensive research 24 25

26 18 ECF No. 53. 27 19 ECF Nos. 54 and 55. 1|| into procedural default doctrines, the Brady violation claim, and a Martinez 2|| argument. Once I have sufficiently reviewed the case materials and procedural 3 history, I will begin the necessary legal research to analyze the applicable law. 4 Habeas cases require meticulous review of trial records, procedural timelines, and 5 state court rulings. Given the voluminous nature of this case, additional time is 6 necessary to adequately review the file materials, conduct the necessary research, ‘ and present the legal arguments. This additional time is necessary in order to effectively represent Mr. Christy.

10 This motion is filed in the interests of justice, as well as in the interests of Mr. Christy, i and not for the purposes of unnecessary delay. 12 On February 21, 2025, I contacted Deputy Attorney General Katrina A. Lopez regarding this request for an extension, who stated that she has no objection. 14|| TIL. Conclusion 15 Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request an additional 60 days up to and including April 22, 2025, to file the Petitioner’s opposition to Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. 18 Dated February 21, 2025. 19 Respectfully submitted, 20 Rene L. Valladares 21 Federal Public Defender 929 /s/ Andréa L. Vieira Andréa L. Vieira 93 Assistant Federal Public Defender oA IT IS SO ORDERED: 25 Dated:_ February 24, 2025 Zo 26 ANDREW P. GORDON 27 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE