Toribio-Ruiz v. Baca

Woe V.LITOVEUUO LS TIVINIL TON YURLUITICI Go PICU US i Aye 2 OULD || AARON D. FORD Attorney General || HARRY B. WARD, Bar No. 11317 Deputy Attorney General || State of Nevada Public Safety Division || 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 || Tel: (775) 684-1159 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants || Isidro Baca and Linda Fox 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA || HERIBERTO TORIBIO-RUIZ, Case No. 3:17-cv-00674-MMD-CBC il Plaintiff, |lv. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A || ISIDRO BACA, ef al., DISPOSITIVE MOTION (Second Request) 14 Defendants.

15 Defendants, Isidro Baca and Linda Fox, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, □□□□□□□□□ || General of the State of Nevada, and Harry B. Ward, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Cour || for an order enlarging the time for Defendants to file dispositive motions. This Motion is made pursuan || to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. Proc.”) 6(b) and is based upon the following Point: || and Authorities and all pleadings and papers on file herein. This Motion is made in good faith and no || for the purposes of undue delay.

21 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 23 Plaintiff Heriberto Toribio-Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) is a Nevada Department of Corrections □□□□□□□ || inmate proceeding pro se in this § 1983 action for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs || Plaintiff is currently housed at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“‘NNCC”). The Court allowed □ || single claim for Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference to proceed against NNCC Pharmacis || Linda Fox (“Fox”), former NNCC Pharmacy Assistant Sunshine Flores (“Flores”), former NDOC Medica || Director Romeo Aranas (“Aranas”), and NNCC Warden Isidro Baca (“Baca”). (ECF No. 3 at 3.) The ee WE Mame Nee Net ETN he TN te BE MY Oo 1 claim is based on the allegations Plaintiff continually received his prescription pain medications late afte || timely requesting refills at NNCC. (/d. at 3-5.) Plaintiff alleges the violations began occurring in 2015 anc || are continuing through the present. (/d.)

4 After the parties were unable to settle this case at the Inmate Early Mediation Conference, □□□□ || No. 21), and Defendants answered, (ECF No. 29), this Court issued its Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 30 |} In the Scheduling Order, the Court ordered the parties to submit any motions for summary judgment by |j July 17, 2019. (Ud. at 3:25-28) Defendants were unable to comply with this deadline. Defendant: || asserted they need additional time to respond because the Litigation Division of the Office of the Attorney || General was currently severely short-staffed. Defendant’s asserted the burden placed on the attorney: || remaining in the division was overwhelming. Additionally, defense counsel, Heather Zana’s last day with || the office was July 18, 2019.

12 Undersigned counsel recently accepted employed with the Litigation Division of the Office of the || Attorney General. | Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court allow then || thirty (30) additional days, or up to and including Thursday, October 17, 2019, to file their dispositiv || motion.

16 | U1. LEGAL STANDARD 17 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. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows: 20 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 21 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 22 party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

24 “The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present to the || Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expired (i.e., a request presented || before the time then fixed for the purpose in question has expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line || Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D. Pa. 1962). The Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (suck || as an attorney’s “conflicting professional engagements” or personal commitments such as WADE □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ YD, LUTION ro iP Aye VU || vacations, family activities, illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with || acourt deadline. Jd. Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely || made.” Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D. Ohio 1947). The good cause standard considers a || party’s diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, || Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

6 1. DISCUSSION 7 Defendants’ deadline to file their dispositive motion is today, September 17, 2019. As the || deadline has not yet expired, Defendants must therefore demonstrate good cause for the requestec || enlargement. Good cause exists to enlarge the time for Defendants to file their motion because □□□□ |] counsel has been recently employed with the Office of the Attorney General and needs additional time tc || evaluate the case; contact Defendants regarding potential defenses; and obtain possible declarations ir |] support their possible defenses.

13 Additionally, counsel has been assigned many cases wherein dipositive motion deadlines have || been pre-set and counsel has not had the required time to familiarize himself with the matter prior to □□□□□□ 15. || dispositive motions. Such is the case in the instant matter.

16 Defendants are seeking this enlargement in good faith and not for the purpose of any unnecessary || delay. Moreover, Defendants do not perceive any possible prejudice to Plaintiff if this motion i: || granted. Therefore, Defendants request to be allowed up to and including Thursday, October 17, 2019 || to file their motion.

20 ||/// |l/// |V/// |[/// |/// \W/// WAST V.LETUVTUYEY ESET INIIVILA ON, UCU Sr PO VP PAY UI IV. CONCLUSION 2 As stated, Defendants need additional time to file their dispositive motion based on □□□□□ || counsel’s inability to timely complete the motion due to his recent assignment to the case. Accordingly || Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court grant their motion and allow them up to anc || including Thursday, October 17, 2019, to file their motion.

6 DATED this 17th day of September 2019.

7 AARON D. FORD 3 Attorney General 9 By: Mi lian Sh — ARRY B. WARD, Bar No. 11317 10 Deputy Attorney General 11 Attorneys for Defendants 15 SO ORDERED Mea 7 paren: 4 [§7 ZO LY WAY LETUVOUUYU WNIWNILAT VUUTTIOCT ro PIM a TY SY VI 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada, and tha || on this 17th day of September, 2019, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing, DEFENDANTS ||MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION (Seconc || Request), by U.S. District Court CM/CEF Electronic Filing on: Heriberto Toribio-Ruiz, #86947 || Care of NNCC Law Librarian Northern Nevada Correctional Center {| P.O. Box 7000 Carson City, NV 89702 || [email protected] 12 ( ‘ache line?

3 An employee of the Office of the Attorney General