Castro v. State of Nevada

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Luis A. Castro, Case No. 2:24-cv-00389-APG-DJA 4 Petitioner v. Order Granting Extension of Time to Respond to Emergency Motion for 5 State of Nevada, et al., Discovery to June 30, 2025 6 Respondents [ECF No. 30] — 7 — 8 Luis A. Castro has filed what he has styled as an emergency motion for discovery. ECF 9 No. 28. The Federal Public Defender, counsel for Castro, states that her investigator has 10 identified a potential alibi witness. The witness is incarcerated at Clark County Detention Center 11 and is scheduled to be released this month. The FPD expresses concern that it may be difficult to 12 reach the witness after he has been released from custody due to housing instability. The 13 investigator met with the witness for the first time on May 6, 2025, and he signed his declaration 14 on May 21, 2025. Two weeks later, on June 5, 2025, the FPD asked counsel for the respondents 15 if she would agree to a deposition with Kroeger. Counsel did not agree. 16 The respondents have filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the motion for 17 discovery. ECF No. 30. Counsel for the respondents indicates that she is out of state on annual 18 leave. She also disputes that there is an emergency, arguing that the FPD fails to explain why the 19 witness will be difficult to reach later.1 The court notes that two weeks passed between the time 20 the investigator met with the witness and when the witness signed the declaration. Then an — 21 — 1 Counsel for the respondents indicates that in her response she will challenge the motion for discovery on 22 the bases that any claim arising from the potential alibi witness would be untimely, barred by Tollet v. Henderson because Castro pleaded guilty, unexhausted, and anticipatorily defaulted. ECF No. 30 at 2. 23 She’ll also argue that discovery is improper in light of Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366 (2022) and Calderon v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 98 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1996). 1} additional two weeks passed before the FPD contacted counsel the for the respondents to ask if 2||she would agree to the deposition. I find good cause to grant the brief extension counsel the respondents seeks. 4 I THEREFORE ORDER that the respondents’ motion for extension of time to file a response to the emergency motion for discovery [ECF No. 30] is granted. The deadline is 6]| extended to June 30, 2025. 7 DATED this 16th day of June, 2025. — 8 — 7 ANDREW P.GORDON sits 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 —