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.

Morales v. McDaniel

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 3, 2019

JORGE MORALES, Plaintiff,
v.
E.K. MCDANIEL, et al., Defendants.

          AARON D. FORD Attorney General DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 Senior Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Public Safety Division Attorneys for Defendants Tara Carpenter, Barbara Cegavske, James Dzurenda, E.K. McDaniel, William Sandie, Brian Sandoval, Mark Sorci, and James Stogner

          MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

         Defendants, Tara Carpenter, Barbara Cegavske, James Dzurenda, Brian Sandoval, Mark Sorci, and James Stogner, by and through counsel Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Robert W. DeLong, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Honorable Court for an enlargement of time of thirty (30) days, or up to and including Thursday, October 31, 2019, to file their motion for summary judgment.

         This motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the papers and pleadings on file herein

         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. 21 at 1.) Plaintiff, Jorge Morales (Plaintiff), was an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). (ECF No. 21.)

         According to this Court's Scheduling Order, motions for summary judgment are due, October 2, 2019. (ECF No. 25 at 3:27 - 4:1.) Defendants' former counsel, Robert DeLong is no longer representing defendants in this matter. Defendants are now represented by Douglas R. Rands. Furthermore, multiple attorneys in the Bureau of Litigation, Public Safety Division, have recently left the division, and new attorneys, have only recently started with the Division. The Public Safety Division was severely short-staffed for time;. Defense counsel is now dealing with the issues arising out of that transition, and has three Motions for Summary judgment due this week, including two on October 2, 2019. In order to properly and fully represent the various Defendants, Counsel respectfully requests this extension of time to file a Motion for Summary Judgment in this matter.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) 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 notion 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 Thursday, October 31, 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.