Posey v. State of Nevada

D. Nevada

Posey v. State of Nevada

DecidedJanuary 13, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01123

StatusUnknown

This text of Posey v. State of Nevada (Posey v. State of Nevada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Posey v. State of Nevada, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 || Anthony Posey, Case No. 2:24-cv-01123-CDS-BNW 4 Petitioner Order Granting Motion to Extend Time and Denying Motions for Summary 5 |Iv. Judgment and Relief from Judgment 6 || Ronald Oliver, et al., [ECF Nos. 22, 23, 24] 7 Respondents 9 Respondents move for an order extending the time to file their response to the 10 |}petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 24. I find that respondents’ 11 ||motion is in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay. Thus it will be granted. 12 Also pending before me are petitioner’s motions for summary judgment and relief from 13 |/judgment. ECF Nos. 22, 23. Both motions are premised on the erroneous claim that respondents’ 14 ||failure to respond to his petition or request an extension on or before January 5, 2025, entitles him 15 |/to an order and judgment granting him habeas relief. Because January 5, 2025, fell on a Sunday, 16 ||respondents’ response was due on January 6, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(c). Thus their 17 ||motion for extension of time was timely filed. Moreover, default judgments are disfavored in 18 || habeas corpus cases. Bleitner v. Weiborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653 (7th Cir. 1994); Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 19 |/610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating “[t]he failure to respond to claims raised in a petition for habeas 20 |/corpus does not entitle the petitioner to a default judgment”). 21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents’ motion to extend time [ECF No. 24] is 22 ||GRANTED. Their response to the amended petition (ECF No. 10) is due March 7, 2025. In all 23 ||other respects, the schedule set forth in my order of November 4, 2024, (ECF No. 20) remains in 24 |leffect. 25 IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motions for summary judgment and relief 26 ||from judgment [ECF Nos. 22, 23] are DENIED. /, / 27 Dated: January 13, 2025 LZ shh — V d States District Judge /

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 || Anthony Posey, Case No. 2:24-cv-01123-CDS-BNW 4 Petitioner Order Granting Motion to Extend Time and Denying Motions for Summary 5 |Iv. Judgment and Relief from Judgment 6 || Ronald Oliver, et al., [ECF Nos. 22, 23, 24] 7 Respondents 9 Respondents move for an order extending the time to file their response to the 10 |}petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 24. I find that respondents’ 11 ||motion is in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay. Thus it will be granted. 12 Also pending before me are petitioner’s motions for summary judgment and relief from 13 |/judgment. ECF Nos. 22, 23. Both motions are premised on the erroneous claim that respondents’ 14 ||failure to respond to his petition or request an extension on or before January 5, 2025, entitles him 15 |/to an order and judgment granting him habeas relief. Because January 5, 2025, fell on a Sunday, 16 ||respondents’ response was due on January 6, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(c). Thus their 17 ||motion for extension of time was timely filed. Moreover, default judgments are disfavored in 18 || habeas corpus cases. Bleitner v. Weiborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653 (7th Cir. 1994); Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 19 |/610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating “[t]he failure to respond to claims raised in a petition for habeas 20 |/corpus does not entitle the petitioner to a default judgment”). 21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents’ motion to extend time [ECF No. 24] is 22 ||GRANTED. Their response to the amended petition (ECF No. 10) is due March 7, 2025. In all 23 ||other respects, the schedule set forth in my order of November 4, 2024, (ECF No. 20) remains in 24 |leffect. 25 IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motions for summary judgment and relief 26 ||from judgment [ECF Nos. 22, 23] are DENIED. /, / 27 Dated: January 13, 2025 LZ shh — V d States District Judge /

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Posey v. State of Nevada, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/posey-v-state-of-nevada-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack