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.

Davis v. Robinson

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 28, 2019

RODNEY DAVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBINSON, et al., Defendants.

          AARON D. FORD Attorney General GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE Deputy Attorney General, Bar No. 13142 State of Nevada Public Safety Division Attorneys for Defendants Jackson Hardy, William Holbert, And Tim Robinson

          DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

         Defendants, Jackson Hardy, William Holbert, and Tim Robinson, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Gerri Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court to continue the settlement conference currently scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on July 11, 2019.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This is a pro se inmate civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 15 at 1. Plaintiff, Rodney Davis ("Plaintiff'), is an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC"). Id. He alleges violations of his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and claims that Defendants used excessive force against him. Id. at 4. Defendants in this action are Hardy, Holbert, and Robison (collectively, "Defendants"). Id. at 7.

         On June 13, 2019, this Honorable Court scheduled a settlement conference for 9:00 a.m. on July 11, 2019. ECF No. 7Oatl. Counsel unfortunately neglected to recall that she had a preexisting settlement conference for the same date and time in another matter. See Coleman v. Robinson, et al.t Docket No. 3:17-cv-00310-MMD-WGC, ECF No. 38 at 1. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request this Court continue the settlement conference in this matter.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. This Court is authorized to continue the settlement conference.

         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). A motion for a continuance of any pre-trial matter should be granted for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

         B. Good cause exists to continue the settlement conference.

         Good cause exists to continue the settlement conference based on the scheduling conflict. As previously stated, counsel has a preexisting settlement conference scheduled for 9:C0 a.m., on July 11, 2019. Counsel regrets that she did not recall this conflict while before the Court for hearing, and counsel apologizes for the inconvenience caused by her error. Nonetheless, counsel cannot be in two places at one time and therefore needs this conference rescheduled. Counsel will be unable to appear for a settlement conference on the following dates:

• Tuesday, July 19, 2019 (in the afternoon);
• Thursday, July 11, 2019 (in the ...

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.