District Court, D. New Mexico, 2026

Matthew Stephen Hepple v. Attorney General for the State of New Mexico

Matthew Stephen Hepple v. Attorney General for the State of New Mexico
District Court, D. New Mexico · Decided July 14, 2026
Matthew Stephen Hepple v. Attorney General for the State of New Mexico

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

MATTHEW STEPHEN HEPPLE,

Petitioner, v. No. 2:23-cv-00864-MV-KRS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Mathhew S. Hepple’s (“Petitioner”) July 13, 2026, letter wherein he requests a fifteen (15) day extension to file a reply brief in support of his Section 2255 Motion. (Doc. 20). The Court construes Petitioner’s letter as a Motion for an Extension (“Motion for Extension”). See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.3d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (“A pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally”). Petitioner states an extension is warranted because as of the date of his letter he had not received Respondent Attorney General for the State of New Mexico’s (“Respondent”) Answer, (Doc. 18), which was filed on June 24, 2026. (Doc. 20 at 1). Petitioner’s reply brief was due July 14, 2026, in accordance with the Court’s Order. See (Doc. 17 at 2) (granting Petitioner twenty (20) days to file a response). Having considered the Motion for Extension and record of the case, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Extension.

On April 22, 2026, Petitioner updated his mailing address with the Court to reflect his transfer to the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility (“CNMCF”), located in Los Lunas, New Mexico. (Doc. 15). However, on June 24, 2026, Respondent mailed the Answer via first-class to Petitioner at the Lea County Correctional Facility in Hobbs, New Mexico. (Doc. 18 at 23). The Court finds Petitioner is not at fault for any delay in receiving the Answer because he complied with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.6. The Court further finds Petitioner shall have fifteen (15) days from entry of this Order to file a reply brief.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner may file a reply brief in support of his Section 2255 Motion by July 29, 2026.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of July, 2026.

KEVIN R. SWEAZEA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.