Hernandez v. Henley

Opinion

FERNANDO NAVARRO HERNANDEZ, Case No. 3:09-cv-00545-LRH-CSD

Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 309) WILLIAM REUBART, et al., Respondents. In this capital habeas corpus action, the Court has ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing—an amended answer by Respondents, followed by an amended reply by Petitioner Fernando Navarro Hernandez, followed by a response to the amended reply by Respondents—in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022). See Order entered June 28, 2022 (ECF No. 307). Respondents’ amended answer was due August 29, 2022. See id. On August 29, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 309), requesting a 91-day extension of time, to November 28, 2022 (November 27 is a Sunday), for their amended answer. Respondents’ counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases. Hernandez does not oppose the motion for extension of time. The Court finds that the motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of time requested. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 309) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including November 28, 2022, to file their amended answer. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered February 20, 2015 (ECF No. 94) will remain in effect. DATED THIS 6th day of September, 2022. I STATES DISTRICT JUDGE