United States District Court, D. Nevada
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 ...