Patterson v. Williams Sr ( 2021 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PATTERSON, Case No. 2:20-cv-01267-GMN-NJK 6 Petitioner, v. ORDER 7 BRIAN WILLIAMS, SR., et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner seeks a 60-day extension of time to file and serve an amended petition 11 for writ of habeas corpus. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 12 Petitioner Christopher Michael Patterson’s unopposed fifth Motion for Extension of Time 13 (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. Patterson has until January 31, 2022, to file an amended 14 petition for writ of habeas corpus. 15 Habeas actions are civil actions under federal practice and are subject to the 16 reporting requirements of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (“CJRA”), 28 U.S.C. 17 § 471 et seq. The CJRA sets a three-year goal to resolve each civil case on the 18 merits, id. § 476(a)(3), and encourages “setting, at the earliest practicable time, deadlines 19 for filing motions and a time framework for their disposition,” id. § 473(a). Lengthy habeas 20 litigation is generally incompatible with the purposes served by the Antiterrorism and 21 Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”): finality, efficiency, and comity. 22 Petitioner initiated this federal habeas proceeding in July 2020. The Court 23 appointed the Federal Public Defender to represent Petitioner in December 2020, and set 24 a deadline of March 2, 2021, for him to file an amended petition or seek other appropriate 25 relief. The new deadline I approve in this order, January 31, 2022, falls 1 year and 6 26 months after this case began. Based on the lack of progress to date, additional delay 27 may jeopardize the parties’ ability to litigate a dispositive motion and brief this case 28 for merits consideration within three years. Any future request for extension of time 1 regarding the deadline to file the amended petition—even if unopposed—will be 2 carefully scrutinized for good cause in light of the CJRA’s three-year goal. 3 Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the federal 4 limitation period and timely presenting claims. That is, by setting a deadline to amend the 5 petition and/or by granting any extension thereof, the Court makes no finding or 6 representation that the petition, any amendments thereto, and/or any claims contained 7 therein are not subject to dismissal as untimely. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 8 (9th Cir. 2013). 9 DATED: December 13, 2021 10 ________________________________ 11 GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28