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. 318) WILLIAM GITTERE, 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 filed their amended answer on March 17, 2023 (ECF No. 317). Hernandez, who is represented by appointed counsel, was then due to file his amended reply by May 1, 2023. See Order entered June 28, 2022 (ECF No. 307). On May 1, 2023, Hernandez filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 318), requesting a 91-day extension of time, to July 31, 2023, for his amended reply. Hernandez’s counsel states that this extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases. Hernandez’s counsel states that Respondents do 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 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 318) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including July 31, 2023, to file his amended reply. 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 1 day of May, 2023. - Make UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE