AARON D. FORD 2 Attorney General JOHN REGALIA (Bar No. 16969) 3 Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada 4 Office of the Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-3106 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3768 (fax) 7 Attorneys for Defendants Bob Faulkner, John Keast, 8 Kimberley McCoy, Erin Parks, Patricia Smith and Megan Sullivan 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 STEVE COLEMAN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00232-ART-CSD 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 14 v. FOR EXTENSION TO THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE 15 BRIAN SMITH, et al., (FIRST REQUEST) 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff, Steve Coleman, pro se, and Defendants, Bob Faulkner, John Keast, 18 Kimberley McCoy, Erin Parks, Patricia Smith, and Megan Sullivan, by and through 19 Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, and John Regalia, Deputy 20 Attorney General, hereby respectfully submit the following Stipulation to extend 21 dispositive deadlines. 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 23 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 24 This is a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Steve Coleman 25 (Coleman). On April 19, 2024, this Court issued its Screening Order, allowing Coleman to 26 proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim for an alleged deliberate indifference to Coleman’s 27 eye condition against Defendants Smith, Keast, Faulkner, McCoy, and Parks. ECF No. 4 28 at 9:1-3. 2 filing dispositive motions. Parties are thus seeking a short extension of the dispositive 3 motion deadline to determine if settlement is feasible prior to the filing of dispositive 4 motions. 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Motions to extend deadlines set out in a discovery plan or scheduling order are 7 governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and LR 26-3. To prevail on a motion to extend a 8 scheduling order deadline, the moving party must show “good cause.” Id. 9 To demonstrate good cause, the parties must show “that, even in the exercise of due 10 diligence, [the parties were] unable to meet the timetable set forth in the order.” Cruz v. 11 City of Anaheim, CV-1003997-MMM-JEMX, 2011 WL 13214312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 12 2011) (citing Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 13 2002); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Prejudice 14 to the opposing party is a factor in determining good cause, though lack of prejudice is “not 15 a prerequisite.” Id. 16 A stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to a fact of the case, and, as 17 such, it is evidence introduced by both of the parties. U.S. v. Hawkins, 215 F.3d 858, 860 18 (8th Cir. 2000). Stipulations relating to proceedings before the court . . . must be in writing 19 and signed by all parties who have appeared or their attorneys. LR 7-1(a). No stipulation 20 relating to proceedings before the court . . . are effective until approved by the court. 21 LR 7-1(b). 22 III. ARGUMENT 23 Parties have agreed to a thirty (30) day extension of the dispositive motion deadline. 24 Parties contend good cause exists to discuss a potential settlement before filing dispositive 25 motions in the case. This time will allow parties to discuss a potential settlement and 26 prepare for a potential dispositive motion if settlement cannot be reached. 27 /// 28 /// 1 PROPOSED DEADLINE 2 ° Current Dispositive Motion Deadline April 30, 2026. 3 ° Proposed Dispositive Motion Deadline May 31, 2026 4 DATED this 30th day of April, 2026. DATED this 30th day of April, 2026. 5 By: /s/_ Steve Coleman! By: /s/ John Regalia 6 STEVE COLEMAN #72160 JOHN REGALIA (Bar No. 16969) Plaintiff, Pro Se Deputy Attorney General 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 9 10 ORDER 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. CS By 18 UNITED STABES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 DATE: May 1, 2026 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 There was a minor error in the caption of the original stipulation. This stipulation with Plaintiffs signature is filed as an attachment.
ATTACHMENT
Original Signed
Stipulation
ATTACHMENT 1 AARON D. FORD 2 || Attorney General JOHN REGALIA (Bar No. 16969) 3 || Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada 4 || Office of the Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-3106 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3768 (fax) 7 || Attorneys for Defendants, Bob Faulkner, John Keast, 8 || Kimberley McCoy, Erin Parks, Patricia Smith and Megan Sullivan UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA STEVE COLEMAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-00979-JAD-NJK Plaintiff, 13 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION TO Vv. THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION 14 DEADLINE BRIAN SMITH, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, Steve Coleman » pro se, and Defendants, Bob Faulkner, John Keast, % Kimberley McCoy, Erin Parks, Patricia Smith, and Megan Sullivan, by and through Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, and John Regalia, Deputy Attorney General, hereby respectfully submit the following Stipulation to extend dispositive deadlines. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PROCEDURAL HISTORY ga This is a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Steve Coleman (Coleman). On April 19, 2024, this Court issued its Screening Order, allowing Coleman to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim for an alleged deliberate indifference to Coleman’s ay eye condition against Defendants Smith, Keast, Faulkner, McCoy, and Parks. ECF No. 4 at 9:1-3. 28
Page 1 of 3
1 Both parties have expressed an interest in reaching a potential settlement prior to 2 || filing dispositive motions. Parties are thus seeking a short extension of the dispositive 3 |/motion deadline to determine if settlement is feasible prior to the filing of dispositive 4 || motions. 5 |/II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Motions to extend deadlines set out in a discovery plan or scheduling order are 7 governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and LR 26-3. To prevail on a motion to extend a 8 || scheduling order deadline, the moving party must show “good cause.” Id. 9 T'o demonstrate good cause, the parties must show “that, even in the exercise of due 10 || diligence, [the parties were] unable to meet the timetable set forth in the order.” Cruz v. 11 || City of Anaheim, CV-1003997-MMM-JEMX, 2011 WL 13214312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 12 2011) (citing Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 13 || 2002): Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Prejudice 14 || to the opposing party is a factor in determining good cause, though lack of prejudice is “not 15 prerequisite.” Id. 16 A stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to a fact of the case, and, as 17 || such, it is evidence introduced by both of the parties. U.S. v. Hawkins, 215 F.3d 858, 860 18 || (8th Cir, 2000). Stipulations relating to proceedings before the court... must be in writing 19 || and signed by all parties who have appeared or their attorneys. LR 7-1(a).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AARON D. FORD 2 Attorney General JOHN REGALIA (Bar No. 16969) 3 Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada 4 Office of the Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-3106 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3768 (fax) 7 Attorneys for Defendants Bob Faulkner, John Keast, 8 Kimberley McCoy, Erin Parks, Patricia Smith and Megan Sullivan 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 STEVE COLEMAN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00232-ART-CSD 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 14 v. FOR EXTENSION TO THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE 15 BRIAN SMITH, et al., (FIRST REQUEST) 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff, Steve Coleman, pro se, and Defendants, Bob Faulkner, John Keast, 18 Kimberley McCoy, Erin Parks, Patricia Smith, and Megan Sullivan, by and through 19 Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, and John Regalia, Deputy 20 Attorney General, hereby respectfully submit the following Stipulation to extend 21 dispositive deadlines. 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 23 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 24 This is a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Steve Coleman 25 (Coleman). On April 19, 2024, this Court issued its Screening Order, allowing Coleman to 26 proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim for an alleged deliberate indifference to Coleman’s 27 eye condition against Defendants Smith, Keast, Faulkner, McCoy, and Parks. ECF No. 4 28 at 9:1-3. 2 filing dispositive motions. Parties are thus seeking a short extension of the dispositive 3 motion deadline to determine if settlement is feasible prior to the filing of dispositive 4 motions. 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Motions to extend deadlines set out in a discovery plan or scheduling order are 7 governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and LR 26-3. To prevail on a motion to extend a 8 scheduling order deadline, the moving party must show “good cause.” Id. 9 To demonstrate good cause, the parties must show “that, even in the exercise of due 10 diligence, [the parties were] unable to meet the timetable set forth in the order.” Cruz v. 11 City of Anaheim, CV-1003997-MMM-JEMX, 2011 WL 13214312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 12 2011) (citing Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 13 2002); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Prejudice 14 to the opposing party is a factor in determining good cause, though lack of prejudice is “not 15 a prerequisite.” Id. 16 A stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to a fact of the case, and, as 17 such, it is evidence introduced by both of the parties. U.S. v. Hawkins, 215 F.3d 858, 860 18 (8th Cir. 2000). Stipulations relating to proceedings before the court . . . must be in writing 19 and signed by all parties who have appeared or their attorneys. LR 7-1(a). No stipulation 20 relating to proceedings before the court . . . are effective until approved by the court. 21 LR 7-1(b). 22 III. ARGUMENT 23 Parties have agreed to a thirty (30) day extension of the dispositive motion deadline. 24 Parties contend good cause exists to discuss a potential settlement before filing dispositive 25 motions in the case. This time will allow parties to discuss a potential settlement and 26 prepare for a potential dispositive motion if settlement cannot be reached. 27 /// 28 /// 1 PROPOSED DEADLINE 2 ° Current Dispositive Motion Deadline April 30, 2026. 3 ° Proposed Dispositive Motion Deadline May 31, 2026 4 DATED this 30th day of April, 2026. DATED this 30th day of April, 2026. 5 By: /s/_ Steve Coleman! By: /s/ John Regalia 6 STEVE COLEMAN #72160 JOHN REGALIA (Bar No. 16969) Plaintiff, Pro Se Deputy Attorney General 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 9 10 ORDER 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. CS By 18 UNITED STABES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 DATE: May 1, 2026 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 There was a minor error in the caption of the original stipulation. This stipulation with Plaintiffs signature is filed as an attachment.
ATTACHMENT
Original Signed
Stipulation
ATTACHMENT 1 AARON D. FORD 2 || Attorney General JOHN REGALIA (Bar No. 16969) 3 || Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada 4 || Office of the Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-3106 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3768 (fax) 7 || Attorneys for Defendants, Bob Faulkner, John Keast, 8 || Kimberley McCoy, Erin Parks, Patricia Smith and Megan Sullivan UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA STEVE COLEMAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-00979-JAD-NJK Plaintiff, 13 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION TO Vv. THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION 14 DEADLINE BRIAN SMITH, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, Steve Coleman » pro se, and Defendants, Bob Faulkner, John Keast, % Kimberley McCoy, Erin Parks, Patricia Smith, and Megan Sullivan, by and through Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, and John Regalia, Deputy Attorney General, hereby respectfully submit the following Stipulation to extend dispositive deadlines. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PROCEDURAL HISTORY ga This is a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Steve Coleman (Coleman). On April 19, 2024, this Court issued its Screening Order, allowing Coleman to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim for an alleged deliberate indifference to Coleman’s ay eye condition against Defendants Smith, Keast, Faulkner, McCoy, and Parks. ECF No. 4 at 9:1-3. 28
Page 1 of 3
1 Both parties have expressed an interest in reaching a potential settlement prior to 2 || filing dispositive motions. Parties are thus seeking a short extension of the dispositive 3 |/motion deadline to determine if settlement is feasible prior to the filing of dispositive 4 || motions. 5 |/II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Motions to extend deadlines set out in a discovery plan or scheduling order are 7 governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and LR 26-3. To prevail on a motion to extend a 8 || scheduling order deadline, the moving party must show “good cause.” Id. 9 T'o demonstrate good cause, the parties must show “that, even in the exercise of due 10 || diligence, [the parties were] unable to meet the timetable set forth in the order.” Cruz v. 11 || City of Anaheim, CV-1003997-MMM-JEMX, 2011 WL 13214312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 12 2011) (citing Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 13 || 2002): Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Prejudice 14 || to the opposing party is a factor in determining good cause, though lack of prejudice is “not 15 prerequisite.” Id. 16 A stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to a fact of the case, and, as 17 || such, it is evidence introduced by both of the parties. U.S. v. Hawkins, 215 F.3d 858, 860 18 || (8th Cir, 2000). Stipulations relating to proceedings before the court... must be in writing 19 || and signed by all parties who have appeared or their attorneys. LR 7-1(a). No stipulation 20 ||relating to proceedings before the court ... are effective until approved by the court. 21 7-1(b). 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 || /// 26 || /// 27 28 |{///
Page 2 of 8
1 |). ARGUMENT 2 Parties have agreed to a thirty (30) day extension of the dispositive motion deadline. 3 || Parties contend good cause exists to discuss a potential settlement before filing dispositive 4 motions in the case. This time will allow parties to discuss a potential settlement and 5 || prepare for a potential dispositive motion if settlement can’t be reached. 6 ||IV. PROPOSED DEADLINE 7 ° Current Dispositive Motion Deadline April 31, 2026. 8 ° Proposed Dispositive Motion Deadline May 31, 2026 9 10 DATED this 30th day of April, 2026. DATED this 30th day of April, 2026. 12 By: /¢, Le ey By: /s/ John Regalia 13 Steve Coleman #72160 John Regalia (Bar No. 16969) 14 Plaintiff, pro se Deputy Attorney General 15 16 Li 18 ORDER 19 ITIS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE J UDGE 28 24 DATE: 25 26 27 28
Page 3 of 3