Crawley v. Daniels

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMay 29, 2024
Docket3:22-cv-00530
StatusUnknown

This text of Crawley v. Daniels (Crawley v. Daniels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crawley v. Daniels, (D. Nev. 2024).

Opinion

Attorney General 2 ANDREW C. NELSON, Bar No. 15971 Senior Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street 4 Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1227 5 E-mail: ACNelson@ag.nv.gov 6 7 Attorneys for Defendants Richard Ashcraft, Charles Daniels, Kody Hollaway, Kyle Olsen, 8 Robert Robison, Robert Suwe, and Brian Williams 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 DAINE CRAWLEY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00530-CSD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 13 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 14 CHARLES DANIELS, et al., MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. (ECF NO. 41) 16 17 Defendants Richard Ashcraft, Charles Daniels, Kody Hollaway, Kyle Olsen, Robert 18 Robison, Robert Suwe and Brian Williams, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada 19 Attorney General, and Andrew C. Nelson , Senior Deputy Attorney General, of the State of 20 Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby respectfully request an extension of time to 21 fille a response to Plaintiff, Daine Crawley’s (Crawley’s) Motion for Partial Summary 22 Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 (Motion). (ECF No. 41). 23 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 24 I. INTRODUCTION 25 This is a pro se civil rights action brought by Plaintiff, Daine Crawley (Crawley), 26 asserting claims arising under 42 U.S.C. §1983. (See generally ECF No. 8). After the 27 Court’s mandatory screening process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a), Crawley proceeded 28 on the following claims. (See generally ECF No. 9 at 6-7:1-3). Specifically, Crawley 2 Defendants Richard Ashcraft (Ashcraft), Charles Daniels (Daniels), Kody Hollaway 3 (Hollaway), Kyle Olsen (Olsen), Robert (Robison), Robert Suwe (Suwe), and Brian Williams 4 (Williams), (collectively “NDOC Defendants”). (See id. at 6:10-12; 18-20; 28; 7:1-3). 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), the “court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . 7 with or without motion or notice . . . if a request is made, before the original time or its 8 extension expires.” 9 III. ARGUMENT 10 On May 6, 2024, Crawley filed his Motion. (ECF No. 41). Undersigned Counsel 11 recently made an appearance in this matter on May 14, 2024. (ECF No. 42). During this 12 time, Undersigned Counsel has diligently attempted to review Crawley’s Motion, including 13 all attached exhibits and discovery responses to timely respond to Crawley’s Motion . (See 14 generally ECF No. 41). However, given the recent appearance, Undersigned Counsel is still 15 reviewing and familiarizing himself with all pleadings and papers necessary to prepare a 16 succinct and adequate response. 17 The requested extension will enable Undersigned Counsel time to complete his 18 analysis of the Motion, attached exhibits, and any additional pleadings and papers in this 19 case necessary to formulate a response to Plaintiff’s Motion, and to file Defendants’ own 20 dispositive motion at the Court’s deadline. For example, the Ninth Circuit provided a non- 21 exhaustive list of valid good-cause reasons in the context of F.R.C.P. 6(b). See Ahanchia v. 22 Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253. The Ninth Circuit noted reasons such as holidays, 23 weekends, prior commitments, previously planned trips, other occupational duties, 24 personal and familial obligations, and the health of legal professionals. Id. at 1258-60. 25 Given that, Undersigned Counsel respectfully requests additional time to respond to 26 Crawley’s Motion. 27 /// 28 /// 1 ||IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based upon the foregoing, Undersigned Counsel respectfully requests an additional 3 fourteen (14) day to include up to and until June 12, 2024, to respond to Crawley’s 4 || Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56. (ECF No. 41). 5 DATED this 28th day of May 2024. 6 AARON D. FORD 7 Attorney General

8 By: /s/ Andrew C. Nelson ANDREW C. NELSON, Bar No. 15971 9 Senior Deputy Attorney General 10 Attorneys for Defendants 11 12 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || DATED: May 29, 2024. CS By 15 16 UNITED STATES M&GISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.
624 F.3d 1253 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Crawley v. Daniels, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawley-v-daniels-nvd-2024.