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.

Perez v. Gentry

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 26, 2018

RUBEN P. PEREZ, Petitioner,
v.
JO GENTRY, 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 Ruben P. Perez

          UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE OPPOSITION TO THE RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST REQUEST)

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II JUDGE

         Petitioner Ruben P. Perez respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time of sixty (60) days, from February 26, 2018, to and including April 27, 2018, in which to file an opposition to the respondents' motion to dismiss.

         POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         1. Mr. Perez filed a counseled amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court on February 10, 2017. ECF No. 12. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on February 12, 2018. ECF No. 26. Mr. Perez's opposition to the motion to dismiss is due on February 26, 2018.

         2. Undersigned counsel has been diligently working to prepare Mr. Perez's opposition to the respondents' motion to dismiss. However, counsel respectfully suggests that additional time is necessary in order to properly prepare the opposition.

         3. The respondents' motion to dismiss argues that Mr. Perez filed his pro se federal petition almost sixteen years after the expiration of the statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions. ECF No. 26 at 5. In order to respond to that argument, undersigned counsel intends to conduct additional factual development that may require additional time.

         4. Undersigned counsel previously requested that counsel for the respondents provide various records from the Nevada Department of Corrections that have potential relevance to Mr. Perez's opposition. While counsel for the respondents previously turned over some of those documents, undersigned counsel requested on February 23, 2018, that counsel for the respondents turn over additional documents with potential relevance to Mr. Perez's opposition. Counsel for the respondents agreed to do so but, on information and belief, has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to begin assembling those documents.

         5. Undersigned counsel spoke with Mr. Perez at length regarding the opposition on or about February 21, 2018. Additional conversations with Mr. Perez will likely prove necessary in order to properly prepare the opposition.

         6. In recent months, undersigned counsel has been assigned as lead counsel to multiple new cases in which the client has or may have time remaining on the federal statute of limitations. Given the hard-and-fast nature of the Section 2244(d) deadline, and the ramifications of failing to file a thorough amended petition within the applicable statute of limitations, undersigned counsel has been prioritizing the review of those new cases in recent weeks.

         7. Undersigned counsel has had many professional obligations in recent weeks, including, among others, motions for leave to conduct discovery and for an evidentiary hearing filed on January 17, 2018, in Sawyer v. Baker, 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, No. 3:16-cv-00665-HDM-VPC (D. Nev.); an opposition to a motion to dismiss filed on January 22, 2018, in Matlean v. Williams, No. 3:16-cv-00233-HDM-VPC (D. Nev.); a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, along with a petition for genetic marker analysis, filed on February 15, 2018, in Castillo v. Baker, , No. CR05-0560 (Nev. Second Judicial Dist. Ct.), and a deposition conducted on February 22, 2018, along with various other obligations in connection with discovery authorized by the Court, in Slaughter v. Baker, No. 3:16-cv-00721-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev.).

         8. Undersigned counsel has many additional professional obligations in the coming weeks, including, among others, a reply brief due on March 2, 2018, in LaPena v. Grigas, No. 15-16154 (9th Cir.); an oral argument scheduled on March 12, 2018, in Gutierrez v. State, No. 16-15704 (9th Cir.); an amended petition due on March 14, 2018, in Patterson v. State, No. 2:17-cv-02131-JCM-GWF (D. Nev.); a reply in support of a petition due on March 20, 2018, in Gonzalez v. Williams, No. 2:15-cv-00618-RFB-CWH (D. Nev.); an opening brief due on March 21, 2018, in Mercado v. State, No. 74513 (Nev.); an opening brief due on March 30, 2018, in Banuelos v. Smith, No. 17-164889 (9th Cir.); and an amended petition due on April 2, 2018, in Guzman v. Attorney General, No. 3:17-cv-00515-HDM-VPC (D. Nev.).

         9. Therefore, undersigned counsel seeks an additional sixty (60) days, up to and including April 27, 2018, in which to file the opposition to the respondents' motion to dismiss. This is undersigned counsel's first request for an extension of time in which to file Mr. Perez's opposition.

         10. On February 23, 2018, undersigned 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 ...


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.