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.

Pamplin v. Baker

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 3, 2019

JOHN DAVID PAMPLIN, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN BAKER, et al, Defendants.

          AARON 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)

         Defendants 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.

         MEMORANDUM OF PONTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This 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.)

         According 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.)

         Defendants' 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.

         Federal 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.

         Defendants' 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.

         For 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.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) allows this Court to extend deadlines.

         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. ...


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.