United States District Court, D. Nevada
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
C. JONES JUDGE
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.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
FACTS AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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.
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.Accordingly, Defendants respectfully
request this Court allow them one additional week (or up to
and including Thursday, April 19, 2019) to respond.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1) allows this Court to extend
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.
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).
Good cause exists to enlarge the time for Defendants to
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 ...