United States District Court, D. Nevada
D. FORD Attorney General, DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572
Senior Deputy Attorney General 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
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 uri to and including Thursday, October
31, 2019, to file their motion for summary judgment.
motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and
Authorities and the papers and pleadings on file herein
OF PONTS AND AUTHORITIES
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,
an(J the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA). (ECF No. 21.)
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.
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.
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 Thursday, October 31, 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).