Hudspath v. Olson

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 MELVIN M. HUDSPATH, Case No. 3:20-cv-000638-LRH-CLB 6 Petitioner, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 7 EXTEND TIME KYLE OLSON, et al., (ECF No. 40) 9 Respondents. 10 This habeas matter is before the Court on Respondents’ motion to extend the deadline to 11 || file and serve their answer to the Third Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 12 |} U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (ECF No. 40). Respondents moved for an extension before the 13 || deadline to answer expired, arguing that they need more time because their counsel’s case load has 14 || recently increased, and counsel has other demanding projects with deadlines that nearly overlap 15 || the deadline in this matter. Counsel seeks 35 days to effectively respond to the Petition. 16 When a party moves to extend a deadline before the original time expires and the stated 17 || reasons show good cause, the court may grant the extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); LR IA 6-1. 18 || “ ‘Good cause’ is a non-rigorous standard,” Ahanchian vy. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 19 |} 1259 (9th Cir. 2010), which primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the extension. 20 || Inre W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). The Court 21 || finds that Respondents have demonstrated that good cause exists to extend the deadline here. 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to 23 || Answer Petitioner’s Third Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 40) is 24 || GRANTED. Respondents’ deadline to file an answer is EXTENDED to November 22, 2022. 25 DATED this 18" day of October 2022. 26 . 27 L Y R. HICKS 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE