Tagle v. State of Nevada

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * VICTOR TAGLE, Case No. 2:15-CV-2082 JCM (VCF) 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. STATE OF NEVADA, 11 Defendant(s).

13 Presently before the court is the matter of Tagle v. State of Nevada et al, case no. 2:15-cv- 02082-JCM-VCF.

15 On September 16, 2019, pro se plaintiff Victor Tagle (“plaintiff”) filed the instant motion to extend time to file a response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment that was filed on August 22, 2019. (ECF No. 95); see (ECF No. 91). In his motion, plaintiff requests that the court extend his time to file a response by thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 95).

19 Under Local Rule 7-2, parties are granted twenty-one (21) days to file a response to a motion for summary judgment. LR 7-2(b). Because defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on August 22, 2019, the deadline for plaintiff’s response would have been September 12, 2019. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated and alleges that prison policies inhibited his ability to timely respond to the defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 95).

24 Because plaintiff is a prisoner representing himself pro se in this matter, and because public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, the court will grant plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file his response. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“public policy favor[s] disposition of cases on their merits . . .”). No further extensions of time will be granted.

1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff's motion to extend time (ECF No. 95) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiff shall file his response to defendants’ motion | for summary judgment within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 DATED September 17, 2019.

8 J Bettis © Ata llars 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE □□ es C. Mahan District Judge _2-