Pamplin v. Baker

Opinion

Net CAD a ae ON Oe et | Ne tet De NE et Eke —ee™/

1 |} AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 || HARRY B. WARD, Bar No. 11317 Deputy Attorney General 3 || State of Nevada Public Safety Division 4 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 5 || Tel: (775) 684-1159 E-mail: hward@ag.nv.gov 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 || Renee Baker, James Dzurenda, Robin Hager, John Keast, g || Gregory Martin and Brian Sandoval || 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 | JOHN DAVID PAMPLIN, | Case No. 3:16-cv-00745-MMD-CBC 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 13 || vs. | ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO MOVE FOR | SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 |} WARDEN BAKER, ef ail., (Second Request) 15 Defendants. 16 Defendants Renee Baker, James Dzurenda, Robin Hager, John Keast, Gregory Martin and Bria! 17 |} Sandoval, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Harr 18 || B. Ward, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Honorable Court for an enlargement of time o 19 || thirty (30) days, or up to and including Wednesday, October 30, 2019, to file their motion for summar 20 || judgment. 21 MEMORANDUM OF PONTS AND AUTHORITIES 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 This case is a pro se civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 8 at 1.) Plaintif 24 John David Pamplin (Plaintiff), is an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department c 25 {| Corrections (NDOC). Ud) Plaintiff allbges Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth an 26 || Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (ECF No. 10.) 27 Wiis 28 Wii

ee eT ee eee Ee Ee NE EN EE eee

1 According to this Court’s nl Order, motions for summary judgment were due, July 31 2 |} 2019. (ECF No. 40 at 3:25-27,) Defendants were unable to comply with this deadline and sough 3 || additional time to move for summary judgment. (ECF No. 55.) This Court granted Defendant’s reques 4 || for an extension to file its summary judgment up to and including, Monday, September 30, 2019. (ECI 5 || No. 57.) 6 Defendants’ former counsel, Gerri Lynn Hardcastle is no longer representing defendants in thi: 7 || matter. Defendants are now represented Harry B. Ward. Furthermore, multiple attorneys in the 8 || Bureau of Litigation, Public Safety Division, have recently left the division, and new attorneys 9 || including undersigned counsel, have onl | ecently started with the Division. The Public □□□□□□ 10 || Division was severely short-staffed at the t iL Defense counsel respectfully requests this extension □□ 11 |] accommodate the new arrivals and the Divisibn during this transition period. 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure et governs extensions of time and provides as follows: 13 When an act may or must be one within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if 14 the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the 15 party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 16 || Defendants’ request is timely and will not hinder or prejudice Plaintiff's case, but will allow for □ 17 || thorough briefing to narrow or eliminate issues in this case. The requested thirty (30) day extension o 18 || time should permit the parties’ time to adec uately research draft, and submit dispositive motions in thi: 19 || case. Defendants assert that the requisite good cause is present to warrant the requested extension o 20 || time. 2] For these reasons, Defendants resp cifully request a thirty (30) day extension of time from th 22 |} current deadline to file dispositive moti ds in this case, with a new deadline to and □□□□□□□□□ 23 || Wednesday, October 30, 2019. 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) allows this Court to extend deadlines. 26 District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v 27 || Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v, Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cit 28 || 1992). Fed. R. Civ, P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows:

ee Nee ee ED Sf Ee ee A Oe

When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, 1 for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its 2 extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the 3 party failed to act because o excusable neglect. 4 “The proper procedure, when addi a time for any purpose is needed, is to present to the 5 || Court a timely request for an extension efore the time fixed has expired (i.e., a request presentec 6 || before the time then fixed for the purpose i | uestion has expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line 7 || Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D.Pa. 1962). The Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (suck 8 || as an attorney’s “conflicting professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations 9 || family activities, illnesses, or death) often) necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a cour 10 || deadline. /d. Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made.’ 11 || Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D.Ohio 1947). The good cause standard considers a party’ 12 || diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2 13 |) 604, 609 (9th Cir, 1992). 14 B. Good Cause Exists to Enl rge the Time for Defendants to Respond. 15 Here, Defendants are requesting ad itional time to respond in advance of the deadline to do sc 16 || Therefore, they must demonstrate good ¢ use for the requested enlargement. Good cause exists t 17 || enlarge Defendants’ time to move for summary judgment based on their counsel’s current workloa 18 || and recent employment with the Division. | 19 Good cause exists to enlarge Defe dants’ time to move for summary judgment by thirty (30 20 || days, because former counsel, Gerri Ly Hardcastle, is no longer representing defendants in thi 21 || matter and new counsel wil! need sufficient time to become acquainted with this case prior to draftin 22 || the motion for summary judgment. 23 Defendants request this enlargemey t\of time in good faith, not for the purpose of unnecessar 24 || delay, and they do not anticipate any unfair prejudice to Plaintiff if this motion is granted. 25 ! 26 |I/// : 27 28 Wisi 3

IEE EERE EEE EEE

| CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant thei 3 || motion and allow them an additional thirty (30) days, or up to and including Wednesday, October 30 4 |} 2019, to file their motion for summary judgment. 5 DATED this 30th day of September, 2019. 6 AARON D. FORD 4 _ Attorney General

8 y: /s/ Harry B. Ward HARRY B. WARD, Bar No. 11317 9 Deputy Attorney General 10 Attorneys for Defendants 1] S SO ORDERED 13 | =

15 | patED: /0/ □□ LLY 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 26 : 27 28 . ,

Nt Natt ote et Oe ee Oe | — FOSS Uae

] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada, and tha 3 || on this 30" day of September, 2019, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing, DEFENDANTS 4 || MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, by 5 || U.S, District Court CM/CEF Electronic Filing on: 6 || John D. Pamplin 474405 Care of NNCC Law Librarian 7 Il Northern Nevada Correctional Center P.O. Box 7000 8 || Carson City, NV 89702 9 lawlibrary@doc.nv.gov 10 11 /s/ Caitie Collins An employee of the 12 Office of the Attorney General 13 14 □ 15 16 17 . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28