Lopez v. Williams ( 2019 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 eK OK 6 || ALEXANDER LOPEZ, Case No. 2:18-cv-00480-JCM-NJK 7 Petitioner, 3 v. ORDER 9 BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., 10 Respondents. 11 This habeas mater is before the court on petitioner Alexander Lopez’s first motion for 12 || enlargement of time (ECF No. 36). Respondents filed their answer (ECF No. 35) to Petitioner’s 13 || petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) on November 25, 2019.' Pursuant to the court’s 14 || scheduling order, Petitioner has 30 days to mail a reply to the clerk of court for filing. (ECF No. 3.) 15 || Petitioner’s current motion seeks an extension of time until May 1, 2020, to submit a reply. He 16 || represents that he has limited access to the prison law library and “need[s] time to file motions” 17 || (ECF No. 36 at 2), although he does not indicate what type of relief he would seek.” 18 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for 19 || enlargement of time (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Petitioner 20 || has until February 24, 2020, to mail a reply to the clerk of court for filing. 21 DATED December 20, 2019. 22 23 C Bidiws ©. 4 oa JAMESC.}WAHAN ——— The court notes that its review of a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is generally limited to the 28 record that was before the state courts. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181-82 (2011).