United States District Court, D. Nevada
L. VALLADARES Federal Public Defender Nevada State Bar No.
11479 MEGAN C. HOFFMAN Assistant Federal Public Defender
Nevada State Bar No. 09835 JEREMY C. BARON Assistant Federal
Public Defender District of Columbia Bar No. 1021801
Attorneys for Petitioner Julius Bradford
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO
FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST REQUEST)
RICHARD F. BOULWARE II JUDGE
Julius Bradford, by and through his attorneys of record,
Assistant Federal Public Defenders Megan C. Hoffman and
Jeremy C. Baron, hereby moves this Court for an extension of
time of fourteen (14) days, from November 13, 2017, to and
including November 27, 2017, in which to file the opposition
to the respondents' motion to dismiss. This motion is
based on the attached points and authorities and any
pleadings and papers on file herein.
Bradford has filed a second amended petition in this case.
ECF No. 67. The respondents have filed a partial motion to
dismiss the second amended petition. ECF No. 73. The current
deadline for the opposition to that motion is November 13,
2017. See ECF No. 66; Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1)(C).
Undersigned counsel have diligently reviewed the motion to
dismiss along with Mr. Bradford's file in an effort to
prepare the opposition by the Court's deadline. However,
counsel respectfully suggest that additional time is
necessary to properly prepare Mr. Bradford's opposition
to the motion to dismiss.
partial motion to dismiss covers seven claims in Mr.
Bradford's amended petition. In his opposition to the
motion to dismiss, Mr. Bradford anticipates making a number
of detailed arguments regarding each of these claims,
potentially including an argument that he is actually
innocent within the meaning of Schlup v. Delo, 513
U.S. 298 (1995), and arguments under Martinez v.
Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012). Because these potential
arguments require detailed factual and legal discussions, the
anticipated opposition is lengthy and complex. As such,
additional time is necessary in order to properly prepare the
addition to opposing the motion to dismiss, Mr. Bradford is
considering whether to file a motion for leave to conduct
discovery and/or for an evidentiary hearing. See ECF
No. 66 (requiring that if Mr. Bradford intends to file such a
motion, it accompany the opposition to the motion to
dismiss). Mr. Bradford had not yet made a final decision
about whether such a motion is necessary and, if it is, the
precise scope of such a motion. As such, additional time is
necessary to evaluate these issues.
undersigned counsel who is taking primary drafting
responsibility for the opposition has had many filing
obligations in recent weeks, including, among others, a reply
brief filed on October 31, 2017, in Gutierrez v.
State, Case No. 16-15704 (9th Cir.); an amended petition
filed on November 6, 2017, in Matlean v. Williams,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00233-HDM-VPC (D. Nev.); an opposition to a
motion to dismiss filed on November 6, 2017, in Castillo
v. Baker, Case No. 3:13-cv-00704-LRH-VPC (D. Nev.), an
opposition in which the client is also asserting his actual
innocence of first-degree murder; and a supplemental opening
brief filed on November 9, 2017, in LaPena v.
Grigas, Case No. 15-16154 (9th Cir.), a 40-year-old case
in which the Ninth Circuit granted a certificate of
appealability regarding the client's actual innocence
within the meaning of Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S.
390, 417 (1993), and that required extensive review of
multiple multi-week trials, evidentiary hearings, trial court
and appellate court pleadings, and other documents (counsel
originally filed a proposed overlength brief on October 16,
2017, and filed a shortened conforming brief on November 9,
addition, the undersigned counsel who is taking primary
drafting responsibility for the opposition has many
additional obligations in the coming weeks, including, among
others, an amended petition due on November 16, 2017, in
Elliot v. Neven, Case No. 3:11-cv-00041-MMD-VPC (D.
Nev.); an application for a certificate of appealability due
on November 17, 2017, in Bynoe v. Baca, Case No.
17-17012 (9th Cir.); an amended petition due on November 20,
2017, in Burch v. Baker, 2:17-cv-00656-MMD-VCF (D.
Nev.); and a reply in support of an amended petition due on
November 20, 2017, in Gonzalez v. Williams, Case No.
2:15-cv-00618-RFB-CWH (D. Nev.).
Therefore, counsel seek an additional fourteen (14) days, up
to and including November 27, 2017, in which to file the
opposition. This is undersigned counsel's first request
for an extension of time to file Mr. Bradford's
opposition. Undersigned counsel do not anticipate the need to
take the entire fourteen days; however, in an abundance of
caution, counsel propose a deadline that postdates the
November 9, 2017, counsel contacted Chief Deputy Attorney
General Heidi P. Stern and informed her of this request for
an extension of time. As a matter of professional courtesy,
Ms. Stern had no objection to the request. Ms. Stern's
lack of objection should not be considered as a waiver of any
procedural defenses or statute of limitations challenges, or
construed as agreeing with the accuracy of the
representations in this motion.
motion is not filed for the purpose of delay, but in the
interests of justice, as well as in the interest of Mr.
Bradford. Counsel for Mr. Bradford respectfully request that
this Court grant this motion and order Mr. Bradford to file