Patterson v. Williams

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 27, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01614
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 TRAItStoHrnAe yC HGAenPeMraAl N (Bar No. 12716) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 5 Phone: (702) 486-3107 Fax: (702) 486-2377 6 tchapman@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Respondents 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 JAYSEN ALEXANDER PATTERSON, Case No.: 2:20-cv-01614-JAD-DJA 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 12 vs. MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 13 CALVIN JOHNSON, et al., MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED PETITION (ECF NO. 36) 14 Respondents. (ECF No. 49) 15 16 Respondents move this Court for an enlargement of time of 21 days from the current due date of 17 May 26, 2022, up to and including June 16, 2022, to file their reply in support of the motion to dismiss 18 Jaysen Patterson’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 36). This Motion is 19 made pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) and Rule 6-1 of the Local Rules of Practice and is based upon the 20 attached declaration of counsel. This is the second enlargement of time sought by Respondents to file the 21 reply, and the request is brought in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. 22 DATED: May 4, 2021. 23 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 24 By: /s/ Trisha Chapman 25 Trisha Chapman (Bar No. 12716) Deputy Attorney General 26 27 28 2 STATE OF NEVADA ) ) ss: 3 COUNTY OF CLARK ) 4 I, TRISHA CHAPMAN, being first duly sworn under oath, deposes and states as follows: 5 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in all courts within the State of Nevada and am 6 employed as a Deputy Attorney General in the Office of the Nevada Attorney General. I have been 7 assigned to represent Respondents in Jaysen Patterson v. Calvin Johnson, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01614- 8 JAD-DJA, and as such, have personal knowledge of the matters contained herein. 9 2. This Motion is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. 10 3. The deadline to file a reply in support of Respondents’ motion to dismiss is May 26, 2022. 11 4. I have been unable with due diligence to timely complete the reply herein. Since the last 12 extension, I spent time preparing for an oral argument that was ultimately submitted on the briefs in 13 Mosby v. Perry Russell, 20-16894. I filed responses in the following federal cases: Hogarth v. Calvin 14 Johnson, 2:21-cv-00251-KJD-EJY (motion to dismiss); Perez-Marquez v. Jo Gentry, 2:17-cv-01501- 15 RFB-BNW (motion to dismiss, motion to suspend the reply briefing and non-opposition to a motion to 16 stay the proceedings); Devose v. William Hutchings, 2:21-cv-02069-APG-DJA (motion to dismiss). I 17 also completed a motion to dismiss in Hosino v. Tim Garrett, 2:21-cv-002234-GMN-VCF that barring 18 any unforeseen circumstances will be filed on May 31, 2022. In addition to these federal responses, I also 19 filed responses out of the Eighth Judicial District Court in the following state habeas cases: A-22-850122- 20 W, A-22-850118-W, A-22-851540-W, A-22-851370-W and I completed a response in A-22-851613-W 21 that barring any unforeseen circumstances will be filed on May 26, 2022. 22 5. The foregoing responses took me longer than anticipated to complete, which impacted my 23 ability to timely file the reply brief in this case. In addition to this reply, I’m also actively working on a 24 motion to dismiss in Johnson v. William Hutchings, 2:21-cv-00707-APG-EJY and an answer in 25 Thompson v. Jerry Howell, 2:21-cv-00511-GMN-NJK. 26 6. Lastly, the Supreme Court of the United States just issued a decision in Shinn v. Ramirez, 27 596 U.S. __ (2022), on May 23, 2022, that appears to directly impact one of the issues in this case. I need 28 additional time to familiarize myself with the case and its possible impact on this case, which will help 1 || the court better resolve the pending motion to dismiss. 2 7. I contacted counsel for Patterson regarding this request and she has no objection. 3 8. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request an enlargement of time of 21 days, up to 4 |} and including June 16, 2022, to file a reply in support of Respondents’ motion to dismiss. 5 Executed on 5/26/2022. 6 /s/ Trisha Chapman Trisha Chapman (Bar No. 12716) 7 Deputy Attorney General 8 9 10 Order 1] Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the unopposed motion to extend the 12 || deadline for Respondents to file a reply in support of their dismissal motion (ECF No. 49) is 13 || GRANTED. The time for Respondents to file a reply to their dismissal motion is EXTENDED to 14 || June 16, 2022. 15 “ ae ogo 17 Jennifer A. Dorséy- United States District Judge 18 Dated: May 27, 2022 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28