Flynn v. State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01753
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 DAWNYELL TENAYA FLYNN, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01753-JAD-NJK 6 Plaintiff, ORDER 7 v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA EX REL. NEVADA 9 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Pending before the Court is an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed 12 on Defendants for failure to comply with a Court order. Docket No. 77. On February 28, 2024, 13 United States District Court Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey entered a 90-day stay of this case pending 14 the parties’ participation in the Inmate Early Mediation Program. Docket No. 53. On May 28, 15 2024, the undersigned extended the stay and ordered that a stay report must be filed three days 16 after the Inmate Early Mediation Conference. Docket No. 63. On November 22, 2024, the parties 17 completed the conference, which was unsuccessful. Docket No. 71. Nonetheless, Defendants 18 failed to file the stay report. See Docket. On March 20, 2025, the Court issued an order to show 19 cause why Defendants should not be sanctioned for their failure to file the stay report in violation 20 of the Court’s order. Docket No. 77. On March 21, 2025, nearly four months after the conference, 21 Defendants filed the stay report.1 Docket No. 81. 22 Defendants’ response states that case reassignment and attorney turnover led to their failure 23 to file the 90-day report as ordered. Docket No. 80 at 3. Further, Defendants submit that the 24 “deputy attorney general assigned to this case at the time of the [Inmate Early Mediation] was a 25 junior deputy who may not have been aware of” the standard practice of the 90-day report in cases 26 involving Inmate Early Mediations. Id. at 4, n1. The explanation is woefully insufficient, as 27 1 Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, Docket No. 80 at 4, a four-month delay is not 28 “relatively minor.” 1} attorneys are expected to manage their caseload, effectively communicate, and make appropriate 2|| arrangements to comply with their obligations to the Court, the opposing party, and their clients. Additionally, the submission of the report was ordered, not merely a part of a “standard practice.” See Docket No. 63. 5 Deputy Attorneys General Iva Todorova, Marni Watkins, Sabrena Clinton, Victoria Corey, 6]| Jessica Whelan, and Kyle Hoyt are hereby ADMONISHED. The Court expects parties who 7| practice in this Court to understand how to practice and to do so competently. See Dela Rosa v. 8|| Scottsdale Mem. Health Sys., Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998) 9 Further, the Court expects strict compliance with its orders and all governing rules moving 10] forward. Failure to practice competently and/or comply with the Court’s orders and rules 11} may result in the imposition of sanctions. 12 Accordingly, the pending order to show cause is hereby DISCHARGED. Docket No. 77. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: March 24, 2025 LD 15 on — a Nancy J. Kepye 16 United'States, Magistrate Judge 7

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28