United States District Court, D. Nevada
D.FORD Attorney General HARRY B, WARD, Bar No. 11317 Deputy
Attorney General State of Nevada Public Safety Division
Attorneys for Defendants Renee Baker, James Dzurenda, Robin
Eager, John Keast, Gregory Martin and Brian Sandoval
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND REQUEST)
Renee Baker, James Dzurenda, Robin Hager, John Keast, Gregory
Martin and Brian Sandoval, by and through counsel, Aaron D.
Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Harry B.
Ward, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Honorable
Court for an enlargement of time of thirty (30) days, or up
to and including Wednesday, October 30, 2019, to file their
motion for summary judgment.
OF PONTS AND AUTHORITIES
case is a pro se civil rights suit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 8 at 1.) Plaintiff, John David
Pamplin (Plaintiff), is an inmate in the lawful custody of
the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his rights under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
(ECF No. 10.)
to this Court's Scheduling Order, motions for summary
judgment were due, July 31, 2019. (ECF No. 40 at 3:25-27.)
Defendants were unable to comply with this deadline and
sought additional time to move for summary judgment. (ECF No.
55.) This Court granted Defendant's request for an
extension to file its summary judgment up to and including,
Monday, September 30, 2019. (ECF No. 57.)
former counsel, Gerri Lynn Hardcastle is no longer
representing defendants in this matter. Defendants are now
represented by Harry B. Ward. Furthermore, multiple attorneys
in the Bureau of Litigation, Public Safety Division, have
recently left the division, and new attorneys, including
undersigned counsel, have only recently started with the
Division. The Public Safety Division was severely
short-staffed at the time. Defense counsel respectfully
requests this extension to accommodate the new arrivals and
the Division during this transition period.
Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(:) governs extensions 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.
request is timely and will not hinder or prejudice Plaintiffs
case, but will allow for a thorough briefing to narrow or
eliminate issues in this case. The requested thirty (30) day
extension of time should permit the parties' time to
adequately research draft, and submit dispositive motions in
this case. Defendants assert that the requisite good cause is
present to warrant the requested extension of time.
these reasons, Defendants respectfully request a thirty (30)
day extension of time from the current deadline to file
dispositive motions in this case, with a new deadline to and
including Wednesday, October 30, 2019.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) allows this Court to extend
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).