Dahir v. McDaniels
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:21-cv-00487-CSD SHANE MICHAEL DAHIR, 4 Order Plaintiff 5 Re: ECF No. 90 v. 6 E.K. MCDANIELS, et al., 7 Defendants 8
9 Plaintiff has filed a motion for enlargement of time. (ECF No. 90.) Plaintiff requests an 10 additional 365 days from August 28, 2025 to August 28, 2026. He does not specify what he 11 needs an additional year’s time to do, but mentions that he will be expiring his sentence on 12 October 18, 2025, and will be moving to Nebraska. 13 Plaintiff goes on to state that the order referring this matter to the magistrate judge on 14 consent at ECF No. 50 is illegal. As a result, he asserts that the undersigned should be removed 15 from this case and that all “judgments” made are void as of January 30, 2024 (the date of the 16 referral on consent). 17 This action was filed by Plaintiff in November of 2021, was assigned to District Judge 18 Du and the undersigned as magistrate judge. (ECF No. 1-1.) The case was screened by the court 19 on March 30, 2022. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) The case was then stayed while the parties participated in 20 the court’s early mediation program. The June 21, 2022, mediation was unsuccessful. (ECF No. 21 10.) The stay was lifted on July 8, 2022, and an answer was filed shortly thereafter. (ECF Nos. 22 13, 14.) The court issued an initial scheduling order on August 18, 2022, and that same day the 23 notice went out to the parties informing them they could elect to consent to proceed with the 1 assigned magistrate judge. A magistrate judge may preside over the case for all purposes only if 2 all parties voluntarily consent. The docket entry specifically states that the AO 85 consent forms 3 are not to be electronically filed, and on consent of all parties the form is to be manually filed 4 with the clerk’s office. (ECF No. 16.)
5 All parties apparently did not consent at that time, and the case proceeded before District 6 Judge Du and the undersigned as the magistrate judge. 7 Several extensions of the scheduling order deadlines were granted, and Plaintiff was 8 allowed to amend his complaint. Once the second amended complaint was served and an answer 9 filed, a case management conference was set for January 29, 2024. (ECF Nos. 35, 42, 43, 44.) 10 Plaintiff filed his case management report indicating he did not consent to the magistrate 11 judge presiding over his case; however, Defendants’ case management report indicated they did 12 consent. (ECF Nos. 45, 46.) The court conducted a case management conference on January 29, 13 2024, and advised the parties again of the availability of the magistrate judge under the consent 14 protocol. (ECF No. 47.) That same day, another scheduling order went out (ECF No. 48), and as
15 is the court’s practice, the form advising the parties of the consent process was issued again on 16 January 30, 2024, at 7:43 a.m. (ECF No. 49.) That same day at 4:47 p.m., District Judge Du 17 issued an order referring the case to the magistrate judge on consent. The page of Defendants’ 18 case management report indicating their consent (ECF No. 50 at 2) and an AO 85 consent form 19 signed by Plaintiff on August 19, 2022 with Judge Du’s signature on January 30, 2024, were 20 docketed (ECF No. 50 at 1). 21 Plaintiff subsequently sought and was granted several extensions of the discovery plan 22 and scheduling order. (ECF Nos. 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64.) Discovery closed on December 23 16, 2024. (ECF No. 64.) Defendants then sought and were granted two extensions of the 1 dispositive motions deadline, with the deadline ultimately extended to May 16, 2025. (ECF Nos. 2 69, 70, 74, 75.) Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on May 15, 2025. (ECF 3 No. 77.) 4 Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 2, 2025 (ECF No. 80), which was dismissed by
5 the Ninth Circuit on July 21, 2025 (ECF No. 85.) The court then gave Plaintiff an additional 30 6 days, until August 22, 2025, to file his response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 7 (ECF No. 86.) 8 On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff sought an extension of time until October 30, 2025 to 9 conduct discovery. (ECF No. 88.) On August 19, 2025, the court denied his motion, setting out 10 in great detail the relevant procedural history, and noting that discovery had closed in December 11 of 2024, and Plaintiff had not demonstrated excusable neglect to justify reopening discovery. 12 The court did, however, give Plaintiff until September 5, 2025, to file his response to 13 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 89.) 14 Apparently displeased with that order, Plaintiff filed this motion for enlargement of time
15 until August 28, 2026. (ECF No. 90.) In this motion, Plaintiff states, for the first time, that the 16 consent order entered in January of 2024 is invalid. 17 Plaintiff states that ECF No. 50 is a refiling of ECF No. 16, from August 18, 2022, and 18 that it was filed on January 30, 2024 with an “expired document.” 19 Plaintiff states he needs an extension until August 28, 2026, so he can do the following: 20 investigate who at Lovelock Correctional Center defrauded the court; to remove me from the 21 case; and because he is expiring his sentence on October 18, 2025, and will be moving back to 22 Nebraska and will need time to make this transition and find an attorney after his sentence 23 expires. 1 It appears to the court that Plaintiff mailed to the Clerk the signed AO 85 form consenting 2 to the magistrate judge presiding over his case when the notice of consent was initially issued in 3 August 2022. When the Defendants subsequently indicated they also consented to the magistrate 4 judge presiding over the case in January 2024, both parties had consented to the magistrate judge
5 presiding over this case, albeit with some time in between the consent being given by each side. 6 Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the magistrate judge presiding over his case until some 7 eight months later, after he received an adverse ruling regarding his request to reopen discovery. 8 Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that he filed the consent form back in 2022, and the 9 consent was not conditional; therefore, the court does not agree that the consent was “illegal.” If 10 Plaintiff wishes to challenge or otherwise withdraw his consent, he must file a properly 11 supported motion, which will be assigned to a district judge for a ruling. See Branch v. 12 Umphenour, 936 F.3d 994, 1001-02 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 73(b)(3)). 14 Finally, Plaintiff’s request for an additional 365 days, from August 28, 2025, to August
15 28, 2026, is denied as Plaintiff does not specify what he needs to do in an additional year’s time, 16 particularly when this case was filed in 2021 and the parties have had ample time to conduct 17 discovery and brief dispositive motions. 18 Plaintiff mentions that he will be expiring his sentence on October 18, 2025, and will be 19 moving to Nebraska. However, the only thing that remains to be done at this juncture is for 20 Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This motion has been 21 pending since May 15, 2025, and the court has already given Plaintiff several extensions of time 22 to file his response. This can be accomplished well before Plaintiff’s sentence expires in October, 23 and will need to occur regardless of whether he files a motion challenging consent. 1 CONCLUSION 2 Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 90) is DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dahir v. McDaniels (Dahir v. McDaniels) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.