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.

Sims v. Aranas

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 20, 2019

AZUJHON KENNETH SIMS, Plaintiff,
v.
ROMEO ARANAS, et al., Defendants.

          AARON 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)

         Defendant, 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).

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This is 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.)

         The 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.).)

         On August 30, 2019, a summons and proof of service of Defendant Johns was filed (ECF No. 26). An answer to the complaint is due today.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         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). 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.

         "The 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Defendant's 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.

         Additionally, 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 ...


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.