1 || AARON D. FORD Attorney General 9 || HARRY B. WARD, Bar No. 11317 Deputy Attorney General 3 || State of Nevada Public Safety Division 4 || 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 5 || Tel: (775) 684-1216 E-mail: hward@ag.nv.gov 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 || James Dzurenda 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 |} PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 3:17-cv-00205-MMD-CLB 11 Plaintiff, 12 | vs. MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLIN TO FILE MOTIONS FOR 13 || JAMES DZURENDA, SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Second Request) 14 Defendant. 15 Defendant, James Dzurenda, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorn 16 || General of the State of Nevada, and Harry B. Ward, Deputy Attorney General, herel 17 || move to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions in this matter by forty-five (4 18 || days. 19 MEMORANDUM OF PONTS AND AUTHORITIES 20 | I. INTRODUCTION 21 Plaintiff Pedro Rodriguez #59114 (Rodriguez), is a prisoner in the lawful custody of tl 22. || Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). (ECF No. 7 at 1). Rodriguez is proceeding p 23 || se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting an First Amendment free exercise claim; : 24 equal protection claim; and a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons A 25 || (RLUIPA) claim against Defendant, former NDOC Director James Dzurenda (Dzurend: 26 || (See generally, ECF No. 7). Rodriguez asserts that the NDOC does not recognize Satanis 27 || as a legitimate faith group. Ud.). Rodriguez seeks declaratory, injunctive, and moneta 28 || relief. Ud. at 14).
1 Dzurenda filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37); Rodriguez opposed □□□ 2 || motion (ECF No. 50); and Dzurenda replied. (ECF No. 54). 3 United States Magistrate Judge Carla B. Carry reviewed the record and motions a1 4 || submitted a Report and Recommendation that Dzurenda’s motion for summary judgme 5 || be granted. (ECF No. 37). 6 United States District Judge Miranda M. Du declined to adopt the Report a1 7 ||Recommendation and ordered Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denie 8 || (ECF No. 64 at 13:1-4). The Court rejected Defendant’s arguments that he is entitled 9 summary judgment based on: the statute of limitations; exhaustion of administrati 10 || remedies; personal participation of Dzurenda; and qualified immunity. (See general 11 || ECF No. 64). 12 Defense counsel respectfully requests this extension to: 1. become more acquaint 13 || with this Court’s original Order denying Defendant’s initial motion to dismiss / motion f 14 ||}summary judgment and discuss the matter with NDOC officials (remotely — due 15 || pandemic); 2. evaluate the sensitive nature of a religious case regarding Satanism; 16 || explore all possible defenses; and 4. obtain new and additional declarations from NDC 17 support of Defendant’s (second) motion for summary judgment. 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and provides : 19 || follows: 20 When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without 21 motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made 22 after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 23 24 || Defendants’ request is timely and will not hinder or prejudice Rodriguez’s case, but w 25 || allow for a thorough briefing to narrow or eliminate issues in this case and to addre 26 || Judge Du’s Order of denial of Defendant’s initial motion. (See generally ECF No. 64). □□□ 27 requested forty-five (45) day extension of time should permit Defendant time 28 || adequately discuss the matter with NDOC officials, research, draft, obtain new a1
1 || additional declarations and submit additional dispositive motions in this case. Defenda 2 || asserts that the requested good cause is present especially during a pandemic to warra 3 || the requested extension of time. 4 For these reasons, Defendant respectfully requests a forty-five (45) day extension 5 time from the current deadline to file dispositive motions in this case, with a ne 6 || deadline to and including Friday, May 15, 2020. 7 DISCUSSION 8 A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) allows this Court to extend deadlines. 9 District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper 10 || Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sulliva 11 || 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of tin 12 || and provides as follows: 13 When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without 14 motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made 15 after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 16 17 “The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is 18 || present to the Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expir 19 || (.e., a request presented before the time then fixed for the purpose in question hi 20 || expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D.Pa. 1962). TI 21 || Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (such as an attorney’s □□□□□□□□□□ 22 || professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations, family activitie 23 || illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a cou 24 || deadline. Jd. Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, 25 timely made.” Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D.Ohio 1947). The good cau 26 || standard considers a party’s diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. □□□□□ 27 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 28 ///
1 B. Good Cause Exists to Enlarge the Time for Defendants to Respond. 2 Here, Defendants are requesting additional time of forty-five (45) days to □□□□□□ 3 || in advance of the deadline to do so. Therefore, they must demonstrate good cause for t] 4 || requested enlargement. Moreover, good cause exists to enlarge Defendant’s time to mo’ 5 || for summary judgment based on the pandemic and the unavailability of NDOC employe 6 || and counsel’s limited office time to represent Defendant. 7 Finally, good cause exists due to the sensitivity and complexity of Rodriguez’s religiot 8 claims of Satanism and this Court’s prior ruling denying Defendant’s initial motion 9 || dismiss / motion for summary judgment. (See generally ECF No. 37 — Dzurenda’s moti 10 || for summary judgment and ECF No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 || AARON D. FORD Attorney General 9 || HARRY B. WARD, Bar No. 11317 Deputy Attorney General 3 || State of Nevada Public Safety Division 4 || 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 5 || Tel: (775) 684-1216 E-mail: hward@ag.nv.gov 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 || James Dzurenda 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 |} PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 3:17-cv-00205-MMD-CLB 11 Plaintiff, 12 | vs. MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLIN TO FILE MOTIONS FOR 13 || JAMES DZURENDA, SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Second Request) 14 Defendant. 15 Defendant, James Dzurenda, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorn 16 || General of the State of Nevada, and Harry B. Ward, Deputy Attorney General, herel 17 || move to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions in this matter by forty-five (4 18 || days. 19 MEMORANDUM OF PONTS AND AUTHORITIES 20 | I. INTRODUCTION 21 Plaintiff Pedro Rodriguez #59114 (Rodriguez), is a prisoner in the lawful custody of tl 22. || Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). (ECF No. 7 at 1). Rodriguez is proceeding p 23 || se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting an First Amendment free exercise claim; : 24 equal protection claim; and a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons A 25 || (RLUIPA) claim against Defendant, former NDOC Director James Dzurenda (Dzurend: 26 || (See generally, ECF No. 7). Rodriguez asserts that the NDOC does not recognize Satanis 27 || as a legitimate faith group. Ud.). Rodriguez seeks declaratory, injunctive, and moneta 28 || relief. Ud. at 14).
1 Dzurenda filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37); Rodriguez opposed □□□ 2 || motion (ECF No. 50); and Dzurenda replied. (ECF No. 54). 3 United States Magistrate Judge Carla B. Carry reviewed the record and motions a1 4 || submitted a Report and Recommendation that Dzurenda’s motion for summary judgme 5 || be granted. (ECF No. 37). 6 United States District Judge Miranda M. Du declined to adopt the Report a1 7 ||Recommendation and ordered Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denie 8 || (ECF No. 64 at 13:1-4). The Court rejected Defendant’s arguments that he is entitled 9 summary judgment based on: the statute of limitations; exhaustion of administrati 10 || remedies; personal participation of Dzurenda; and qualified immunity. (See general 11 || ECF No. 64). 12 Defense counsel respectfully requests this extension to: 1. become more acquaint 13 || with this Court’s original Order denying Defendant’s initial motion to dismiss / motion f 14 ||}summary judgment and discuss the matter with NDOC officials (remotely — due 15 || pandemic); 2. evaluate the sensitive nature of a religious case regarding Satanism; 16 || explore all possible defenses; and 4. obtain new and additional declarations from NDC 17 support of Defendant’s (second) motion for summary judgment. 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and provides : 19 || follows: 20 When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without 21 motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made 22 after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 23 24 || Defendants’ request is timely and will not hinder or prejudice Rodriguez’s case, but w 25 || allow for a thorough briefing to narrow or eliminate issues in this case and to addre 26 || Judge Du’s Order of denial of Defendant’s initial motion. (See generally ECF No. 64). □□□ 27 requested forty-five (45) day extension of time should permit Defendant time 28 || adequately discuss the matter with NDOC officials, research, draft, obtain new a1
1 || additional declarations and submit additional dispositive motions in this case. Defenda 2 || asserts that the requested good cause is present especially during a pandemic to warra 3 || the requested extension of time. 4 For these reasons, Defendant respectfully requests a forty-five (45) day extension 5 time from the current deadline to file dispositive motions in this case, with a ne 6 || deadline to and including Friday, May 15, 2020. 7 DISCUSSION 8 A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) allows this Court to extend deadlines. 9 District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper 10 || Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sulliva 11 || 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of tin 12 || and provides as follows: 13 When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without 14 motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made 15 after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 16 17 “The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is 18 || present to the Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expir 19 || (.e., a request presented before the time then fixed for the purpose in question hi 20 || expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D.Pa. 1962). TI 21 || Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (such as an attorney’s □□□□□□□□□□ 22 || professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations, family activitie 23 || illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a cou 24 || deadline. Jd. Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, 25 timely made.” Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D.Ohio 1947). The good cau 26 || standard considers a party’s diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. □□□□□ 27 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 28 ///
1 B. Good Cause Exists to Enlarge the Time for Defendants to Respond. 2 Here, Defendants are requesting additional time of forty-five (45) days to □□□□□□ 3 || in advance of the deadline to do so. Therefore, they must demonstrate good cause for t] 4 || requested enlargement. Moreover, good cause exists to enlarge Defendant’s time to mo’ 5 || for summary judgment based on the pandemic and the unavailability of NDOC employe 6 || and counsel’s limited office time to represent Defendant. 7 Finally, good cause exists due to the sensitivity and complexity of Rodriguez’s religiot 8 claims of Satanism and this Court’s prior ruling denying Defendant’s initial motion 9 || dismiss / motion for summary judgment. (See generally ECF No. 37 — Dzurenda’s moti 10 || for summary judgment and ECF No. 64 — Order denying Defendants motion for summa 11 || judgment.) 12 Good cause exists to enlarge Defendants’ time to file dispositive motions in this matt 13 || because: (1) the international pandemic and the State of Nevada’s restrictions have mat 14 a lot of NDOC employees unavailable; (2) the international pandemic has limited couns 15 || for Defendant access to Rodriguez’s documents and NDOC officials; (8) Rodriguez’s clair 16 || include sensitive religious claims; (4) this Court has denied Defendant’s initial motion f 17 summary judgment regarding the defenses of statute of limitations, exhaustion, ar 18 || qualified immunity which now need additional legal research and time to appropriate 19 || respond; and (5) counsel needs additional time to explore all possible defenses; obta 20 || additional updated and new declarations from multiple NDOC personnel; and explore □□□ 21 ||new NDOC Director’s position in this matter in support of their motion for summa 22 || judgment. 23 Defendant requests this enlargement of time of forty-five (45) days in good fait 24 || not for the purpose of unnecessary delay, and they do not anticipate any unfair prejudi 25 || to Rodriguez if this motion is granted. 26 /// 27 28 ///
1 | 1. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING DEADLINES 2 Dispositive motion deadline May 15, 2020 3 Joint pretrial order (if no dispositive motions pending)* June 15, 2020* 4 *Or 30 days after the decision of any pending dispositive motions. 5 ||IV. CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Cou 7 grant their motion and allow them an additional forty-five (45) days, or up to a1 8 || including Friday, May 15, 2020, to file their motion for summary judgment. 9 DATED this 30th day of March, 2020. 10 AARON D. FORD Attorney General By: /s/Harry B. Ward 12 HARRY B. WARD, Bar No. 11317 1B Deputy Attorney General
u Attorneys for Defendants 15 16 17 Date: March 31, 2020. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 * 20 21 NRE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State 3 || Nevada, and that on this 30th day of March, 2020, I caused to be deposited for mailing 4 |\the U.S. Mail a copy of the foregoing, MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE T 5 || FILE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Second Request) to the following: 6 7 Pedro Rodriguez, #59114 Ely State Prison g || P.O. Box 1989 Ely, NV 89301 9 10 11 /s/Perla M. Hernandez 12 An employee of the Office of the Attorney General 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28