Rodriguez v. Dzurenda

1 || 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) 684-1216 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant || James Dzurenda 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA |} PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 3:17-cv-00205-MMD-CLB 11 Plaintiff, | vs. MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLIN TO FILE MOTIONS FOR || JAMES DZURENDA, SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Second Request) 14 Defendant.

15 Defendant, James Dzurenda, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorn || General of the State of Nevada, and Harry B. Ward, Deputy Attorney General, herel || move to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions in this matter by forty-five (4 || days.

19 MEMORANDUM OF PONTS AND AUTHORITIES | I. INTRODUCTION 21 Plaintiff Pedro Rodriguez #59114 (Rodriguez), is a prisoner in the lawful custody of tl 22. || Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). (ECF No. 7 at 1). Rodriguez is proceeding p || se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting an First Amendment free exercise claim; : 24 equal protection claim; and a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons A || (RLUIPA) claim against Defendant, former NDOC Director James Dzurenda (Dzurend: || (See generally, ECF No. 7). Rodriguez asserts that the NDOC does not recognize Satanis || as a legitimate faith group. Ud.). Rodriguez seeks declaratory, injunctive, and moneta || relief. Ud. at 14).

1 Dzurenda filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37); Rodriguez opposed □□□ || motion (ECF No. 50); and Dzurenda replied. (ECF No. 54).

3 United States Magistrate Judge Carla B. Carry reviewed the record and motions a1 || submitted a Report and Recommendation that Dzurenda’s motion for summary judgme || be granted. (ECF No. 37).

6 United States District Judge Miranda M. Du declined to adopt the Report a1 ||Recommendation and ordered Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denie || (ECF No. 64 at 13:1-4). The Court rejected Defendant’s arguments that he is entitled 9 summary judgment based on: the statute of limitations; exhaustion of administrati || remedies; personal participation of Dzurenda; and qualified immunity. (See general || ECF No. 64).

12 Defense counsel respectfully requests this extension to: 1. become more acquaint || with this Court’s original Order denying Defendant’s initial motion to dismiss / motion f ||}summary judgment and discuss the matter with NDOC officials (remotely — due || pandemic); 2. evaluate the sensitive nature of a religious case regarding Satanism; || explore all possible defenses; and 4. obtain new and additional declarations from NDC 17 support of Defendant’s (second) motion for summary judgment.

18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and provides : || 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 21 motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made 22 after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

24 || Defendants’ request is timely and will not hinder or prejudice Rodriguez’s case, but w || allow for a thorough briefing to narrow or eliminate issues in this case and to addre || Judge Du’s Order of denial of Defendant’s initial motion. (See generally ECF No. 64). □□□ 27 requested forty-five (45) day extension of time should permit Defendant time || adequately discuss the matter with NDOC officials, research, draft, obtain new a1 || additional declarations and submit additional dispositive motions in this case. Defenda || asserts that the requested good cause is present especially during a pandemic to warra || the requested extension of time.

4 For these reasons, Defendant respectfully requests a forty-five (45) day extension time from the current deadline to file dispositive motions in this case, with a ne || deadline to and including Friday, May 15, 2020.

7 DISCUSSION 8 A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) allows this Court to extend deadlines.

9 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. Sulliva || 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of tin || 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 14 motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made 15 after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

17 “The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is || present to the Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expir || (.e., a request presented before the time then fixed for the purpose in question hi || expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D.Pa. 1962). TI || Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (such as an attorney’s □□□□□□□□□□ || professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations, family activitie || illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a cou || deadline. Jd. Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, 25 timely made.” Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D.Ohio 1947). The good cau || standard considers a party’s diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. □□□□□ 27 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

28 /// 1 B. Good Cause Exists to Enlarge the Time for Defendants to Respond.

2 Here, Defendants are requesting additional time of forty-five (45) days to □□□□□□ || in advance of the deadline to do so. Therefore, they must demonstrate good cause for t] || requested enlargement. Moreover, good cause exists to enlarge Defendant’s time to mo’ || for summary judgment based on the pandemic and the unavailability of NDOC employe || and counsel’s limited office time to represent Defendant.

7 Finally, good cause exists due to the sensitivity and complexity of Rodriguez’s religiot claims of Satanism and this Court’s prior ruling denying Defendant’s initial motion || dismiss / motion for summary judgment. (See generally ECF No. 37 — Dzurenda’s moti || for summary judgment and ECF No. 64 — Order denying Defendants motion for summa || judgment.)

12 Good cause exists to enlarge Defendants’ time to file dispositive motions in this matt || because: (1) the international pandemic and the State of Nevada’s restrictions have mat 14 a lot of NDOC employees unavailable; (2) the international pandemic has limited couns || for Defendant access to Rodriguez’s documents and NDOC officials; (8) Rodriguez’s clair || include sensitive religious claims; (4) this Court has denied Defendant’s initial motion f 17 summary judgment regarding the defenses of statute of limitations, exhaustion, ar || qualified immunity which now need additional legal research and time to appropriate || respond; and (5) counsel needs additional time to explore all possible defenses; obta || additional updated and new declarations from multiple NDOC personnel; and explore □□□ ||new NDOC Director’s position in this matter in support of their motion for summa || judgment.

23 Defendant requests this enlargement of time of forty-five (45) days in good fait || not for the purpose of unnecessary delay, and they do not anticipate any unfair prejudi || to Rodriguez if this motion is granted.

26 /// 28 /// | 1. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING DEADLINES 2 Dispositive motion deadline May 15, 2020 3 Joint pretrial order (if no dispositive motions pending)* June 15, 2020* 4 *Or 30 days after the decision of any pending dispositive motions.

5 ||IV. CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Cou 7 grant their motion and allow them an additional forty-five (45) days, or up to a1 || including Friday, May 15, 2020, to file their motion for summary judgment.

9 DATED this 30th day of March, 2020.

10 AARON D. FORD Attorney General By: /s/Harry B. Ward 12 HARRY B. WARD, Bar No. 11317 1B Deputy Attorney General u Attorneys for Defendants 17 Date: March 31, 2020.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. * 21 NRE 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State || Nevada, and that on this 30th day of March, 2020, I caused to be deposited for mailing |\the U.S. Mail a copy of the foregoing, MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE T || FILE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Second Request) to the following: Pedro Rodriguez, #59114 Ely State Prison g || P.O. Box 1989 Ely, NV 89301 /s/Perla M. Hernandez 12 An employee of the Office of the Attorney General