Doyle v. State of Nevada

Opinion

A AAtRtoOrNne Dy .G FeOnRerDa l 2 DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 13661 Senior Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street 4 Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1150 5 E-mail: drands@ag.nv.gov 6 Attorneys for Defendants Renee Baker, Scott Davis, and 7 Harold Wickham 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 BRETT DOYLE, Case No. 3:19-cv-00725-MMD-CSD 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 12 vs. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT 13 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 Defendants. (First Request) 15 16 Defendants Renee Baker, Scott Davis, and Harold Wickham (collectively the “NDOC 17 Defendants”), by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of 18 Nevada, and Douglas R. Rands, Senior Deputy Attorney General, hereby request an 19 extension of time, to July 1, 2022, to file a reply in support of their dispositive motion. The 20 present motion is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), LR 1A 6-1, LR 26-3, 21 the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and all papers and pleadings on file 22 in this case. 23 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 24 I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 25 This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by inmate Plaintiff Brett Doyle, 26 concerning events that allegedly took place at the Lovelock Correctional Center, asserting 27 claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 28 / / / 2 discovery cut off was January 12, 2022, and the dispositive motions are to be filed by 3 February 9, 2022. Id. at 5-6. Discovery is complete. Defendants submitted their Motion 4 for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40) on April 29, 2022. Doyle filed his Response, totaling 5 325 pages including exhibits, on May 17, 2022. 6 Counsel for the Defendants, David Bailey, has left the employ of the Office of the 7 Attorney General. It will be necessary to reassign this matter to another attorney in the 8 office. Additional time is requested to allow the new attorney to become familiar with the 9 case and the pending motions. Therefore, Defendants respectfully request this Court grant 10 an additional 30 days to file their Reply to Doyle’s Response. 11 II. ARGUMENT 12 Courts have inherent powers to control their dockets, see Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR 13 Mfg, Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (citations omitted), and to “achieve the orderly and expeditious 14 disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). “Such power is 15 indispensable to the court’s ability to enforce its orders, manage its docket, and regulate 16 insubordinate . . . conduct.” See Wallace v. U.S.A.A. Life General Agency, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 17 2d 1062, 1068 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010) (citing Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08–cv01387–RLH– 18 PAL, 2010 WL 3910072, at *2 (D.Nev.2010)). 19 LR IA 6-1 discusses requests for continuances. The rule states: 20 (a) A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must inform the court of all 21 previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted. (Examples: “This is the first stipulation for extension of time 22 to file motions.” “This is the third motion to extend time to take discovery.”) 23 24 This is the first request and is requested for good cause. See LR 26-3. Counsel for 25 Defendants needs additional time to analyze the substantial response submitted by Doyle. 26 The NDOC Defendants’ request will not hinder nor prejudice Plaintiff’s prosecution 27 of his case. The requested 30-day extension of time is needed to allow Counsel to properly 28 reply to the Response. The NDOC Defendants assert that the requisite good cause is 1 || present to warrant the requested extension of time, and that this request is made in good 2 ||faith and not for the purpose of delay. The new attorney will need time to familiarize 3 themselves with the case and the pleadings. 4 CONCLUSION 5 The NDOC Defendants request this Court extend the deadline for dispositive motions 6 this matter. The NDOC Defendants assert that the requisite good cause is present to 7 || warrant the requested extension of time. The request is timely. Therefore, the NDOC 8 || Defendants request additional time, up until July 1, 2022, to file a dispositive motion in this 9 || matter. 10 DATED this 31st day of May 2022. 11 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 12 /,) 13 By: —tt j fj souks R. RANDS, Bar No. 14 Senior Deputy Attorney General 15 Attorneys for Defendants Renee Baker, Scott Davis, and 16 Harold Wickham 17 18 IT ISSO ORDERED. Cs 20 U.S. MAGISTRATE GE a1 DATED: June 1, 2022 22 23 24 25 26 27 28