United States District Court, D. Nevada
L. VALLADARES FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
C. BARON ASSISTANT FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO
FILE OPPOSITION TO THE STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lee Carmichael respectfully moves this Court for an extension
of time of thirty (30) days, from June 24, 2019, to and
including July 24, 2019, in which to file an opposition to
the State's motion to dismiss.
Carmichael filed a counseled amended petition on October 25,
2018. ECF No. 24. The State filed a motion to dismiss on
January 10, 2019. ECF No. 28. Mr. Carmichael's opposition
to the motion to dismiss is due on June 24, 2019.
Undersigned counsel has been reviewing the motion to dismiss
and Mr. Carmichael's file in an effort to comply with the
Court's deadline. However, counsel respectfully suggests
additional time is necessary to properly prepare the
opposition to the motion to dismiss.
Since Mr. Carmichael filed his last motion for an extension
of time, the State has provided undersigned counsel with a
copy of Mr. Carmichael's prison medical records. In turn,
undersigned counsel has reviewed those records and has
prepared a complete draft of an opposition to the State's
motion to dismiss. In the course of drafting the opposition,
undersigned counsel realized he needed to have an additional
conversation with Mr. Carmichael regarding the issues in the
opposition before finalizing and filing the opposition.
Undersigned counsel has asked Mr. Carmichael to call him but
hasn't yet spoken to him regarding this issue. On
information and belief, Mr. Carmichael hasn't yet had a
reasonable opportunity to call undersigned counsel. Once
undersigned counsel speaks with Mr. Carmichael, he should be
able to finalize and file the opposition in short order.
Undersigned counsel has had many professional obligations in
the past weeks, including, among others, an opposition to a
motion to dismiss filed on April 29, 2019, in Elliott v.
McDaniel, No. 3:11-cv-00041-MMD-CBC (D. Nev.); a reply
brief filed on May 3, 2019, in Major v. Baker, No.
76716 (Nev. Sup. Ct.); an oral argument held in San
Francisco, California, on May 15, 2019, in Ramet v.
LeGrande, No. 18-15206 (9th Cir.); an amended petition
filed on May 17, 2019, in Olsen v. LeGrand, No.
3:15-cv-00367-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.); an opposition to a motion to
dismiss filed on May 31, 2019, in Barragan v.
Filson, No. 3:17-cv-00453-LRH- CBC (D. Nev.);
second-chairing an en banc oral argument held in San
Francisco, California, on June 19, 2019, in Ross v.
Williams, No. 16-16533 (9th Cir.); and an opposition to
a motion to dismiss filed on June 21, 2019, in Murray v.
Thomas, No. A-19-794603-W (Nev. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.).
Undersigned counsel has many additional professional
obligations in the coming weeks, including, among others, an
opposition to a motion to dismiss due on June 25, 2019, in
Patterson v. Gentry, No. 2:17-cv-02131-JCM-GWF (D.
Nev.); an opening brief due on June 27, 2019, in
Gutierrez v. Williams, No. 78205 (Nev. Sup. Ct.); an
opposition to a motion to dismiss due on or about June 27,
2019, in Palmer v. Gittere, No. A-19-794605-W (Nev.
Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.); an opposition to a motion to dismiss
due on or about June 27, 2019, in Cortinas v.
Dzurenda, No. A-19-794687-W (Nev. Eighth Jud. Dist.
Ct.); an opposition to a motion to dismiss due on or about
June 28, 2019, in Guzman v. Gittere, No.
A-19-794600-W (Nev. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.); a reply on the
merits due on July 8, 2019, in Howard v. Wick-ham,
No. 3:16-cv-00665-HDM-CBC (D. Nev.); an oral argument
scheduled on July 17, 2019, in Bynoe v. Baca, No.
17-17012 (9th Cir.); an opposition to a motion to dismiss due
on July 22, 2019, in Richard v. Gentry, No.
2:18-cv-00181-KJD-NJK (D. Nev.); and a reply on the merits
due on August 7, 2019, in Bradford v. Filson, No.
2:13-cv-01784-RFB-GWF (D. Nev.).
Therefore, counsel seeks an additional thirty (30) days, up
to and including July 24, 2019, in which to file the
opposition to the motion to dismiss. This is undersigned
counsel's third request for an extension of time in which
to file the opposition to the motion to dismiss.
June 21, 2019, counsel contacted Senior Deputy Attorney
General Michael J. Bongard and informed him of this request
for an extension of time. As a matter of professional
courtesy, Mr. Bongard had no objection to the request. Mr.
Bongard'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 purposes of delay, but in the
interests of justice, as well as in the interest of Mr.
Carmichael. Counsel for Mr. Carmichael respectfully requests
this Court grant the motion and order Mr. Carmichael to file