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.

Salas v. Koehn

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 11, 2019

JERRY SALAS, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. MICHAEL KOEHN, et al., Defendants.

          AARON D. FORD Attorney General GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Bureau of Litigation Public Safety Division Attorneys for Defendant

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 43)

          ROBERT C. JONES JUDGE

         Defendant, Dr. Michael Koehn, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Honorable Court for an enlargement of time to file Defendants' Objection to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 43. This motion is based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), the following memorandum of points and authorities, and all papers and pleadings on file herein.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. FACTS AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by Plaintiff, Jerry Salas (Plaintiff), asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This action arises out of events that allegedly occurred at Ely State Prison (ESP) from December 2014 through February 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Koehn, Aranas, and John/Jane Doe Nurses were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 11 at 10.

         Currently before the Court is the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation ECF No. 43. The Defendants' response to the Report and Recommendation is due today, April 11, 2019. Unfortunately, Defendants are unable to complete their response by this deadline, because their counsel has been unable to work for the last week due to illness requiring surgery and repeated trips to the emergency room.[1]Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request this Court allow them one additional week (or up to and including Thursday, April 19, 2019) to respond.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1) allows this Court to extend deadlines.

         District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows:

When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

         “The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present to the Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expired (i.e., a request presented before the time then fixed for the purpose in question has expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D.Pa. 1962). The Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (such as an attorney's “conflicting professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations, family activities, illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a court deadline. Id. Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made.” Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D.Ohio 1947). The good cause standard considers a party's diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

         B. Good cause exists to enlarge the time for Defendants to respond.

         Here, Defendants are requesting additional time to respond in advance of the deadline to do so. Therefore, they must demonstrate good cause for the requested enlargement. As stated, Defendants need one additional week to file their response, because their counsel has been out of the office for one week due to health issues. Defendants assert that their counsel's incapacity constitutes good cause for the requested enlargement. Moreover, the enlargement of time Defendants are requesting is ...


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.