United States District Court, D. Nevada
D. FORD Attorney General DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572
Senior Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Public Safety
Division Attorneys for Defendant Romeo Aranas
ORDER DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S
Romeo Aranas, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney
General of the State of Nevada, and Douglas R. Rands, Senior
Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Honorable Court for
an enlargement of time to answer or otherwise respond to
Plaintiffs complaint. A hearing on this motion is not
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
case is a pro se civil suit pursuant to the Eighth Amendment
to the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 29 at 3-15).
Plaintiff, Kevin Rohn Gill (Plaintiff), is an inmate in the
lawful custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections
(NDOC). (ECF No. 1-1, 6, 29). Plaintiff sues Defendant for
deliberate indifference to serious medical need and cruel and
unusual punishment. The Court's Screening Order only
allowed him to proceed on a single deliberate indifference
claim. (ECF No. 5 at 5).
filed his Second Amended Complaint in this matter on May 2,
2019, (ECF No. 37). A revised Notice of Acceptance of Service
was filed May 28, 2019. (ECF No. 44). Accordingly,
Defendants' answer is due today, July 8, 2019.
Unfortunately, Defendants are unable to comply with this
deadline. Due to a recent reassignment of this matter, due to
the resignation of the prior attorney counsel is unable to
timely answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. This is
the result of temporary short-staffing in this Bureau of
Litigation at the Office of the Attorney General.
Defendants' counsel is also currently preparing to assist
in a jury trial before the United States District Court,
which is scheduled to commence on August 12, 2019, and
counsel needs sufficient time to prepare for trial.
Therefore, Defendants request fifteen (15) additional days,
or up to and including Tuesday, July 23, 2019, to answer or
otherwise respond to Plaintiffs complaint.
Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) governs enlargements of time and
provides as follows:
(1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a
specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the
(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if
a request is made, before the original time or its extension
(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party
failed to act because of excusable neglect.
the answer or other response to Plaintiffs complaint is due
today, July 8, 2019. Defendant is requesting the enlargement
of time in advance of the expiration of the period originally
prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
respond. Therefore, the Court may extend the time for good
cause. Defendant needs the requested enlargement due to a
recent and dramatic increase in his counsel's current
workload. The Bureau of Litigation at the Office of the
Attorney General has recently experienced short-staffing,
because other attorneys accepted new employment
opportunities. This short-staffing problem should be resolved
in the very near future. Moreover, counsel is currently
preparing for a jury trial before the United States District
Court and needs sufficient time to prepare.
asserts the current short-staffing and his counsel's need
to prepare for trial constitutes good cause for the requested
enlargement. Consequently, Defendant requests fifteen (15)
additional days, or up to and including Tuesday, July 23,
2019, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs complaint.