United States District Court, D. Nevada
CARY J. PICKETT, Plaintiff,
VALDEZ, et al., Defendants.
D. FORD Attorney General GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Bar No. 13142
Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Public Safety
Division Attorneys for Defendant Paul Valdez
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO RESPOND O PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST)
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 respond to Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File Amended Complaints at ECF No. 32.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. ECF No. 4 at 1. Plaintiff, Cary J. Pickett
(Plaintiff), is an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada
Department of Corrections (NDOC). Id. Following
screening, Plaintiff is proceeding on a single claim of
retaliation. Id. at 6.
pending before this Honorable Court is Plaintiff's Motion
for Leave to File Amended Complaints at ECF No. 32.
Defendant's deadline to respond is today, June 20, 2019.
Unfortunately, Defendant is unable to comply with this
docket shows, current counsel became responsible for
representing the Defendant only two (2) days ago, June 18,
2019. ECF No. 37. Counsel has not yet had the opportunity to
familiarize herself the facts and allegations of this case,
but reassignment of counsel was necessary, because several
attorneys in the Public Safety Division have recently left
the Office of the Attorney General, and those attoreys have
not yet been replaced. The Public Safety Division is
therefore severely short-staffed at the present time. The
burden this has placed on the attorneys remaining in the
division, including Defendant's counsel, is currently
overwhelming. Consequently, Defendant respectfully requests
that this Honorable Court allow him an extra thirty (30)
days, or up to and including Friday, July 19, 2019.
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. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
opposition to Plaintiffs motion for leave is due today.
Therefore, Defendant must demonstrate good cause for the
requested enlargement. Good cause exists to enlarge the time
for him to file their opposition, because his counsel is
currently unable to complete the filing due to the manner in
which severe short-staffing in this bureau of the Office of
the Attorney General has impacted counsel's current
workload. Defendant is seeks this enlargement in good faith
and not for the purpose of any unnecessary delay. Moreover,
Defendant does not perceive any possible prejudice to
Plaintiff if this motion is granted. Therefore, Defendant
requests to be allowed up to and including Friday, July 19,
2019, to file his opposition.