Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stewart v. Aranas

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 23, 2018

LEWIS WILLIAM STEWART, Plaintiff,
v.
ROMEO ARANAS, et al., Defendants

          ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General ERIN L. ALBRIGHT, Bar No. 9953 Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Bureau of Litigation Public Safety Division Attorneys for Defendants Romeo Aranas, James Cox, Francisco Sanchez and Brian Williams

          MOTION TO CONTINUE EARLY MEDIATION CONFERENCE (FIRST REQUEST)

         Defendants, Romeo Aranas, James Cox, Francisco Sanchez and Brian Williams, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Erin L. Albright, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this honorable Court to continue the early mediation conference in this matter, which is currently scheduled for July 29, 2018 This motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the papers and pleadings on file herein.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This case is a pro se inmate civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 4 at 1). Plaintiff, Lewis William Stewart (Plaintiff) was an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) at the time the Complaint was filed. Id. The Complaint was screened and this Court allowed an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claim to proceed against Defendants Aranas, Clark, Jones, Sanchez, and Su. (ECF No. 3 at 6).

         Since the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff was released from NDOC's custody on parole and filed a notice of change of address. (ECF No. 7). Thereafter, this Court ordered the parties to participate in an early mediation conference (EMC) on July 31, 2018. (ECF No. 10).

         After receipt of the Complaint, defense counsel requested all documents related to this matter from Defendants. Due to Plaintiffs release from NDOC custody, all records pertaining to Plaintiff have been placed in storage. Defendants have requested all records pertaining to this matter from storage. To date, storage has failed to provide Defendants with the requested documentation.

         On July 23, 2018, defense counsel and Plaintiff discussed this matter. Defense counsel explained to Plaintiff that she could not analyze the case at this time due to the fact that she had not received the necessary documentation from Defendants and inquired whether he would stipulate to a continuance of the EMC. Defense counsel asked Plaintiff for an email address to forward a stipulation to continue the EMC for Plaintiffs signature, but due to Plaintiffs situation he did not have an email address to which a stipulation could be forwarded. It is believed that Plaintiff will be calling the Court Administrator to advise that he is not opposed to continuing the EMC for thirty (30) days.

         Because defense counsel does not have the necessary documentation to analyze this case and engage in a thoughtful EMC, Defendants respectfully request that this Court continue the EMC set for July 31, 2018, for thirty (30) days.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Local Rule IA 6-1 allows parties to move this Court for a continuance of the time set for a certain event. The rule states, in pertinent part, as follows:

A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted. ... A request made after the expiration of the specific period will not be granted unless the movant or attorney demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired was the result of excusable neglect. Immediately below the title of the motion or stipulation there also must be a statement indicating whether it is the first, second, third, etc., requested extension.

LR IA6-l(a).

         This is Defendants' first request for a continuance of the upcoming EMC. Because Plaintiff has been released from NDOC custody all of his records have been placed in storage. Defendants have requested the documents from storage but to this date have not received said documents. Without said ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.