Crawley v. Daniels

Opinion

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

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