Hernandez v. Henley

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

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

8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 318) 10 WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

11 Respondents.

12 13 In this capital habeas corpus action, the Court has ordered the parties to file 14 supplemental briefing—an amended answer by Respondents, followed by an amended 15 reply by Petitioner Fernando Navarro Hernandez, followed by a response to the amended 16 reply by Respondents—in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shinn v. Ramirez, 17 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022). See Order entered June 28, 2022 (ECF No. 307). Respondents 18 filed their amended answer on March 17, 2023 (ECF No. 317). Hernandez, who is 19 represented by appointed counsel, was then due to file his amended reply by May 1, 20 2023. See Order entered June 28, 2022 (ECF No. 307). 21 On May 1, 2023, Hernandez filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 318), 22 requesting a 91-day extension of time, to July 31, 2023, for his amended reply. 23 Hernandez’s counsel states that this extension of time is necessary because of her 24 obligations in other cases. Hernandez’s counsel states that Respondents do not oppose 25 the motion for extension of time. 26 The Court finds that the motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not 27 solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of time 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF 2 || No. 318) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including July 31, 2023, to file his 3 || amended reply. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further 5 || proceedings set forth in the order entered February 20, 2015 (ECF No. 94) will remain in 6 || effect. 7 DATED This 1 day of May, 2023. 8 - 9 Make 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28