Morales v. McDaniel

wh Wet OW EO VV et a Tet he wae PSTN NS Oe Vy a LE ee || AARON D. FORD bo Attorney General || DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 Senior Deputy Attorney General || State of Nevada |!

Public Safety Division || 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 || Tel: (775) 684-1150 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants .

7 || Tara Carpenter, Barbara Cegavske, James|Dzurenda, ELK. McDaniel, William Sandie, Brian Sandoval, || Mark Sorci, and James Stogner 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA || JORGE MORALES, Case No. 3:17-cv-00197-MMD-CBC 13 Plaintiff, ! MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME |lv. TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS ||E.K. MCDANIEL, et al, 16 Defendants. © 17 Defendants, Tara Carpenter, Barbara Cegavske, James Dzurenda, Brian Sandoval, Mark □□□□□ || and James Stogner, by and through counsel Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of □□□□□□ || and Robert W. DeLong, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Honorable Court for a || enlargement of time of thirty (30) days, or up to and including Thursday, October 31, 2019, to file the: || motion for summary judgment.

22 This motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the paper || and pleadings on file herein 24 MEMORANDUM OF PONTS AND AUTHORITIES ||K. INTRODUCTION 26 This case is a pro se civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (ECF No. 21 at 1.) Plaintif || Jorge Morales (Plaintiff), was an inmate inl the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of Correction || (NDOC). (/d.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth | 1 Ne NN ee EO yp eee eee NS TS eo || Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Ac || (RLUIPA). (ECF No. 21.)

3 According to this Court’s Scheduling Order, motions for summary judgment are due, October 2 |}2019. (ECF No. 25 at 3:27 - 4:1.) efendants’ former counsel, Robert DeLong is no longe || representing defendants in this matter. efendants are now represented by Douglas R. Rands || Furthermore, multiple attorneys in the Bureau of Litigation, Public Safety Division, have recently lef the division, and new attorneys, have only recently started with the Division. The Public Safet: || Division was severely short-staffed for time. Defense counsel is now dealing with the issues arising ou || of that transition, and has three Motions for Summary judgment due this week, including two o1 || October 2, 2019. In order to properly and fully represent the various Defendants, Counsel respectfulh || requests this extension of time to file a Motion for Summary Judgment in this matter.

12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and provides as follows: 13 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 14 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 15 party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

16 Defendants’ request is timely and will n t hinder or prejudice Plaintiff’s case, but will allow for | 17. || thorough briefing to narrow or eliminate issues in this case. The requested thirty (30) day extension o || time should permit the parties’ time to adequately research draft, and submit dispositive motions in thi || case. Defendants assert that the requisite good cause is present to warrant the requested extension oa || time.

21 For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request a thirty (30) day extension of time from th || current deadline to file dispositive motions it this case, with a new deadline to and including Thursday || October 31, 2019.

24 || II. DISCUSSION 25 A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) allows this Court to extend deadlines.

26 District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. || Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Ci || 1992). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows: I, ee EE EOS 1 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 2 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 3 party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

4 “The proper procedure, when additidnal 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 cour || deadline. 7d. Extensions of time “usually a granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made.

11 || Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 D. hio 1947). The good cause standard considers a party’ || diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.20 || 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

14 B. Good Cause Exists to Enlarge the Time for Defendants to Respond.

15 Here, Defendants are requesting additional time to respond in advance of the deadline to do sc || Therefore, they must demonstrate good cauise for the requested enlargement. Good cause exists t || enlarge Defendants’ time to move for summary judgment based on their counsel’s current workload an || recent employment with the Division.

19 Good cause exists to enlarge Defe dants’ time to move for summary judgment by thirty (30 || days, because former counsel, Robert DeLong, is no longer representing defendants in this matte: || Additionally, due to the additional case loa , multiple dispositive motions are due this week. Therefore || additional time is requested.

23 Defendants request this enlargement: of time in good faith, not for the purpose of unnecessar || delay, and they do not anticipate any unfair prejudice to Plaintiff if this motion is granted.

25 |f/// |fi// fii Se ee Ne eV Oe fo eS RN Ee | a = =CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant thei || motion and allow them an additional thirty (30) days, or up to and including Thursday, October 31 || 2019, to file their motion for summary judgment.

5 DATED this Ist day of October, 2019.

6 | AARON D. FORD 7 fe Cen DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 9 | Senior Deputy Attorney General 10 | Attorneys for Defendants 11 | | 12 : IS SO ORDERED 13 | Ae Le - 14 : US. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 DATED Of 4/2014

20 : 26 : : 4 TA NE EEE a Nt at et NE ER PE ree 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 1st day of October, 2019, I caused to be deposited for mailing in the U.S. Mail a copy of th || foregoing, MOTION FOR PREARGEN OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, □ || the following: Jorge Morales || c/o Charlene Bernard 4879 Tierra Verda || Las Vegas, NV 89122 ° Ny MIA. ADA 10 employee of the Office of the Attorney General 20 !

26 : 28 i | 5