Lazos v. Parks

Opinion

AARON D. FORD Attorney General DAVID A. BAILEY, Bar No. 13661 Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1163 E-mail: dabailey@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants under Limited Notice of Appearance

FELIPE P. LAZOS, JR.., Case No. 3:22-cv-00099-RCJ-CLB Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [SECOND REQUEST] ERIN PARKS, et al., Defendant. Defendants Michael Minev and Erin Parks, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and David A. Bailey, Deputy Attorney General, hereby request this Court to extend Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiff Felipe Lazos, Jr.'s Emergency Motion (ECF No. 3). This motion is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), LR 1A 6-1, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and all papers and pleadings on file in this case, and such other and further information as this Court may deem appropriate to consider. This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by inmate Plaintiff Filipe Lazos, Jr. 67232), currently housed at Lovelock Correctional Center, asserting claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 8. Following judicial screening under 42 U.S.C. § 1915A, Court allowed one claim to proceed alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. ECF No. 7 at 6.

ARGUMENT Courts have inherent powers to control their dockets, see Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg, Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (citations omitted), and to “achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 82, 43 (1991). “Such power is {indispensable to the court’s ability to enforce its orders, manage its docket, and regulate }insubordinate... conduct.” See Wallace v. U.S.A.A. Life General Agency, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 1062, 1068 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010) (citing Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-cv013887—RLH-— }PAL, 2010 WL 3910072, at *2 (D.Nev.2010)). LR IA 6-1 discusses requests for /continuances. The rule states: (a) A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted. (Examples: “This is the first stipulation for extension of time to file motions.” “This is the third motion to extend time to take discovery.”) This is the second request to extend this deadline and is requested for good cause. Defendants’ research into Plaintiff's claims has revealed that Lazos saw the appropriate provider on May 2, 2022 and he is in the process of being scheduled for surgery. Undersigned counsel requests a second short extension to confirm the date of the anticipated surgery. Defendants, therefore, request a seven-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Emergency Motion. This request for an additional week to respond will not hinder Lazos’s prosecution of his case, especially because he is receiving his requested relief. Defendants assert that the requisite good cause is present to warrant the requested extension of time, and that this request is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. DATED this 20th day of May 2022. No further extensions of time AARON % FORD will be granted. ormney Wenera By: /s/ David A. Bailey S OO oon oD DAVID A. BAILEY, Bar No. 13661 ay £9 Deputy Attorney General » Attorneys for Defendant

LTINIITCM CTADV OCC AAAMICTDOATOEK IWINGC

I certify that Iam an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada that on this 20th day of May, 2022, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [SECOND REQUEST], U.S. District Court CM/ECF Electronic Filing to: Felipe P. Lazos, Jr., #67232 1200 Prison Road

Lovelock, Nevada 89419-5110

/s/ Karen Kaston An employee of the Office of the Attorney General