Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gonzalez v. Williams

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 7, 2018

HECTOR MIGUEL GONZALEZ, Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents.

          RENE L. VALLADARES Federal Public Defender Nevada State Bar No. 11479 JEREMY C. BARON Assistant Federal Public Defender District of Columbia Bar No. 1021801 Attorneys for Petitioner Hector Miguel Gonzalez

          UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION (THIRD REQUEST)

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         Petitioner Hector Gonzalez, by and through his attorney of record, Assistant Federal Public Defender Jeremy C. Baron, hereby moves this Court for an extension of time of sixty (60) days, from January 19, 2018, to and including March 20, 2018, in which to file a reply in support of Mr. Gonzalez's petition. This motion is based upon the attached points and authorities and all pleadings and papers on file herein.

         POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         1. Mr. Gonzalez filed his pro se federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court on or about January 16, 2015. ECF No. 10. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2016. ECF No. 13. The Court issued an order finding certain of the claims to be unexhausted on March 31, 2017. ECF No. 20. The Court appointed counsel on behalf of Mr. Gonzalez and ordered Mr. Gonzalez to either abandon the unexhausted grounds, dismiss his petition, or seek a stay. Id. at 8. Undersigned counsel filed a notice of representation on May 1, 2017 (ECF No. 21), and Mr. Gonzalez filed a declaration that he intended to abandon his unexhausted claims on May 30, 2017 (ECF No. 22). The respondents filed an answer on August 22, 2017. ECF No. 25. The current deadline for Mr. Gonzalez to file a reply in support of his petition is January 19, 2018.

         2. Undersigned counsel has been reviewing Mr. Gonzalez's file and the respondents' answer in an effort to comply with the Court's deadline. However, counsel respectfully suggests that additional time is necessary to properly prepare Mr. Gonzalez's reply.

         3. Many claims in Mr. Gonzalez's petition survived the respondents' motion to dismiss, increasing the complexity of the reply. In addition, Mr. Gonzalez filed a pro se petition in this case, and the Court did not require him to file a counseled amended petition. As a result, the preparation of a reply in the instant case may necessitate additional review and effort compared to a case in which a petitioner has filed a detailed and thorough counseled amended petition.

         4. The Office of the Federal Public Defender has recently assigned undersigned counsel to a number of new cases. Undersigned counsel's preliminary review of those new cases suggests that at least three of them involve clients who have time remaining under the federal statute of limitations for habeas proceedings, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Because of the legal significance of the statute of limitations, and out of a desire to prepare, file, and serve complete and thorough amended petitions in those cases before the expiration of the statute of limitations, undersigned counsel has in recent weeks been prioritizing his review of the files in those cases. Thus, additional time is necessary to prepare the reply in the instant case.

         4. Undersigned counsel has had many professional obligations in recent weeks, including, among others, 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 asserting his actual innocence of first-degree murder; 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 requested leave to file this brief as an overlength brief on October 16, 2017, which the Ninth Circuit denied; counsel filed the corrected brief on November 9, 2017); an application for a certificate of appealability filed on November 16, 2017, in Bynoe v. Baca, Case No. 17-17012 (9th Cir.); an opposition to a motion to dismiss filed on November 27, 2017, in Bradford v. Baker, Case No. 2:13-cv-01784-GMN-GWF (D. Nev.), an opposition in which the client is asserting his actual innocence of first-degree murder; a second amended petition filed on December 6, 2017, and motions for leave to conduct discovery and for an evidentiary hearing filed on January 17, 2018, in Sawyer v. Baker, Case No. 3:16-cv-00627-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.); a motion for leave to conduct discovery filed on January 17, 2018, in Howard v. Wickham, Case No. 3:16-cv-00665- HDM-VPC (D. Nev.); and various obligations in connection with discovery authorized by the Court in Slaughter v. Baker, Case No. 3:16-cv-00721-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev.).

         5. Undersigned counsel has many additional professional obligations in the coming weeks, including, among others, an amended petition due on January 22, 2018, in Esquivel v. Williams, Case No. 2:17-cv-02227-RFB-PAL (D. Nev.); an opposition to a motion to dismiss due on January 22, 2018, in Matlean v. Williams, Case No. 3:16-cv-00233-HDM-VPC (D. Nev.); a second amended petition due on January 28, 2018, in Barragan v. Filson, Case No. 3:17-cv-00453-LRH-VPC (D. Nev.); an opening brief due on January 30, 2018, in Banuelos v. Smith, Case No. 17-164889 (9th Cir.); and a reply brief due on January 31, 2018, in LaPena v. Grigas, Case No. 15-16154 (9th Cir.).

         6. Therefore, counsel seeks an additional sixty (60) days, up to and including March 20, 2018, in which to file the reply in support of the petition. This is undersigned counsel's third request for an extension of time in which to file Mr. Gonzalez's reply.

         6. On January 18, 2018, counsel contacted Deputy Attorney General Natasha M. Gebrael and informed her of this request for an extension of time. As a matter of professional courtesy, Ms. Gebrael had no objection to the request. Ms. Gebrael'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.

         7. This motion is not filed for the purpose of delay, but in the interests of justice, as well as in the interest of Mr. Gonzalez. Counsel for Mr. Gonzalez respectfully requests that this Court grant this motion and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.