United States District Court, D. Nevada
D. FORD Attorney General PETER E. DUNKLEY, Bar No. 11110
Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Public Safety
Division Attorneys for Defendants Marsha Johns
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION (FIRST REQUEST)
Marsha Johns, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada
Attorney General, and Peter E. Dunkley, Deputy Attorney
General, hereby move this Court for an order enlarging the
time for Defendant to file an answer. This Motion is made
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R.
Civ. Proc") 6(b) and is based upon the following Points
and Authorities and all pleadings and papers on file herein.
This Motion is made in good faith and not for the purposes of
undue delay. Defendant requests an additional fourteen (14)
days to file an answer to Plaintiffs four (4) part complaint,
(ECF Nos. 9, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3).
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
an inmate civil rights lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Azujhon
Sims ("Plaintiff), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding
the handling of his medical requests. Plaintiff was an inmate
in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections
("NDOC"). (See generally, ECF No. 9.)
Complaint, filed in four parts, contains more than 100 pages.
(See ECF No. 9 (16 pp.) 9-1 (30 pp.), 9-2 (30 pp.),
and 9-3 (39 pp.).)
August 30, 2019, a summons and proof of service of Defendant
Johns was filed (ECF No. 26). An answer to the complaint is
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).
deadline to file an answer is today, September 19, 2019. As
the deadline has not yet expired, Defendant must therefore
demonstrate good cause for the requested enlargement. Good
cause exists to enlarge the time for Defendant to file an
answer because counsel has only been recently employed with
the Office of the Attorney General and been assigned this
case. (See Notice of Change of Deputy Attorney
General, ECF No. 27.) Counsel for the Defendant needs
additional time to evaluate the merits of the case, discuss
the allegations with the Defendant, and time to evaluate
potential defenses and affirmative defenses in order to
answer the complaint.
counsel has been assigned many cases wherein many deadlines
were set prior to their assignment to the undersigned, and
counsel has not had sufficient time to become familiar with
the cases and ...