Sims v. Aranas

Veith WV VS TY TN bw I ol SUE ON □ MgYvVYas wet |; AARON D. FORD pene Attorney General ATERED —_— Ree ED || PETER E. DUNKLEY, Bar No. 11110 — COUNSELERRTES oF Newent Deputy Attorney General SEUIPARTIES OF RECORD | State of Nevada Public Safety Division || 100 N. Carson Street SEP 2.0 2019 Carson City, NV 89701-4717 || Tel: (775) 684-1259 CLERK US DISTRICT COURT E-mail: [email protected] DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 BY: DEPUTY Attorneys for Defendants || Marsha Johns 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA || AZUJHON KENNETH SIMS, Case No. 3:17-cv-00543-RCJ-CBC 1 Plaintiff, Oedae || vs. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A || ROMEO ARANAS, et al., DISPOSITIVE MOTION (First Request) 14 Defendants.

15 Defendant, Marsha Johns, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney Genera!

16 || and Peter E. Dunkley, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an order enlarging the tim || for Defendant to file an answer. This Motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedur || (“Fed. R. Civ. Proc.”) 6(b) and is based upon the following Points and Authorities and all pleadings ans || papers on file herein. This Motion is made in good faith and not for the purposes of undue delay || Defendant requests an additional fourteen (14) days to file an answer to Plaintiff's four (4) par || complaint, (ECF Nos. 9, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3).

22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES iI. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 24 This is an inmate civil rights lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Azujhon Sims (“Plaintiff”), pursuant t || 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding the handling of hi |} medical requests. Plaintiff was an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department || Corrections (“NDOC”). (See generally, ECF No. 9.)

28 /// eRe eer NN NN ER ee EEN ANE eee AE RA l The Complaint, filed in four parts, contains more than 100 pages. (See ECF No. 9 (16 pp.) 9-1 || G0 pp.), 9-2 (30 pp.), and 9-3 (39 pp.).)

3 On August 30, 2019, a summons and proof of service of Defendant Johns was filed (ECF No || 26). An answer to the complaint is due today.

5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 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 y. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir || 1992). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows: 9 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 10 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 11 party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

12 “The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present to th || Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expired (i.e., a request presente || before the time then fixed for the purpose in question has expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Lin |] Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D. Pa. 1962). The Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (sucl || as an attorney’s “conflicting professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations || family activities, illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a cout || deadline. Jd. Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made.

19 || Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D. Ohio 1947). The good cause standard considers a party’ || diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. || 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

22 || TI. DISCUSSION 23 Defendant’s deadline to file an answer is today, September 19, 2019. As the deadline has not ye || expired, Defendant must therefore demonstrate good cause for the requested enlargement. Good caus || exists to enlarge the time for Defendant to file an answer because counsel has only been recently employe || with the Office of the Attorney General and been assigned this case. (See Notice of Change of Deput || Attorney General, ECF No. 27.) Counsel for the Defendant needs additional time to evaluate the merits of |J/// WAOe OUVOUYU TOTES OS DY ON er NT || the case, discuss the allegations with the Defendant, and time to evaluate potential defenses and affirmative || defenses in order to answer the complaint.

3 Additionally, counsel has been assigned many cases wherein many deadlines were set prior to thei || assignment to the undersigned, and counsel has not had sufficient time to become familiar with the cases || and their respective deadlines, including this case and this deadline.

6 Defendant is seeking this enlargement in good faith and not for the purpose of any unnecessar) || delay. Moreover, Defendant does not perceive any possible prejudice to Plaintiff if this motion i: || granted. Therefore, Defendant request an additional fourteen (14) days to file an answer and be || allowed up to and including Thursday, October 3, 2019, to file an answer.

10 || IV. CONCLUSION 11 As stated, Defendant needs additional time to file an answer based on their counsel’s recen |} assignment to the case. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully request this Honorable Court grant thi || motion and allow Defendant up to and including Thursday, October 3, 2019, to file an answer.

14 DATED this 19th day of September, 2019.

15 AARON D. FORD 16 Attorney General 17 By: /s/ Peter E. Dunkley PETER E. DUNKLEY, Bar No. 11110 18 Deputy Attorney General 19 Attorneys for Defendant x i SO ORDERED 22 PK Ad-CC 73 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE paren: 2209 _