Wilma Banks, et al v. The State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections, et al

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 28, 2026
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02015
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Attorney General 2 KYLE L. HILL, (Bar No.16094) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 (702) 486-0429 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 6 Email: khill@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants State of Nevada ex rel. 8 Nevada Department of Corrections, Antonio Bryant, Ivan Dubon, 9 Calvin Johnson, and Gabriel Yanez 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 WILMA BANKS, et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-02015-CDS-BNW 14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 15 v. EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE TO 16 THE STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 17 CORRECTIONS, et al, [SECOND REQUEST] 18 Defendants. 19 Defendants, Antonio Bryant, Ivon Dubon, Calvin Johnson, and Gabriel Yanez, by and 20 through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, and Kyle L. Hill, 21 Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Court for an extension of time to file their Motion 22 for Summary Judgment. This is Defendants’ second request for the subject extension. 23 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Undersigned counsel filed a Notice of Change of Deputy Attorney General on 26 December 18, 2025, taking over the matter as the assigned deputy attorney general from 27 the deputy who was previously assigned. When undersigned counsel took over 28 responsibility for this matter, counsel already had a planned vacation for the second half 2 between January 20, 2026, and January 30, 2026, and will be unable to access case files 3 necessary to draft Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. As a result of this time 4 period where counsel will be unable to work on the Motion for Summary Judgment, Counsel 5 respectfully requests a brief extension of the deadline from February 2, 2026, to February 6 23, 2026, so that undersigned counsel will have sufficient time to draft the motion for 7 summary judgment upon his return on February 2, 2026. 8 Defendants respectfully request a twenty-one (21) day extension or until February 9 23, 2026, to file their Motion for Summary Judgement. 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 To prevail on a motion to extend scheduling order deadlines, the moving party must 12 show “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); LR 26-3. To demonstrate good cause, the party 13 must show “that, even in the exercise of due diligence, [the parties were] unable to meet the 14 timetable set forth in the order.” Cruz v. City of Anaheim, CV-10-03997-MMM-JEMX, 2011 15 WL 13214312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) (citing Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison 16 Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 17 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Prejudice to the opposing party is a factor in determining good cause, 18 though lack of prejudice is “not a prerequisite.” Id. 19 An extension of time may always be sought and is usually granted on a showing of 20 good cause if timely made under subdivision (b)(1) of [FRCP 6]. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 21 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). A district court possesses the inherent power to control its 22 own docket. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th 23 Cir. 1990); Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 24 III. REASON FOR EXTENTION 25 Good cause is present to extend the MSJ deadline for Defendants. Due to 26 undersigned counsel’s extended absence in late January of 2026, Defendants request 27 additional time for their Motion for Summary Judgment to be prepared once undersigned 28 counsel returns on February 2, 2026. Further, as the undersigned counsel has only recently 1 ||taken over responsibility for this matter, this additional time upon undersigned counsel’s 2 ||return will allow sufficient time for the motion to be prepared and submitted by the 3 || proposed deadline. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the extension be 4 || granted for good cause shown. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1260, 5 Cir. 2010) (holding that the “district court abused its discretion in denying party’s 6 timely motion” to extend time because the party “demonstrated the ‘good cause’ required 7 Rule 6, and because there was no reason to believe that [the party] was acting in bad 8 || faith or was misrepresenting his reasons for asking for the extension’). CONCLUSION 10 Defendants respectfully request this Court extend the deadline for Defendants’ MSJ. 11 || Defendant asserts that requisite good cause is present to warrant an extension of time. 12 ||The request is timely. Therefore, the Defendants request additional time, up until 13 || February 23, 2026, to file their MSJ in this matter. 14 DATED this 13th day of January, 2026. 15 AARON D. FORD 16 Attorney General By: _/s/ Kyle L. Hill 17 KYLE L. HILL (Bar No. 16094) 18 Deputy Attorney General

19 Attorneys for Defendants 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 25 26 Fg le ne bam | UNfFTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 DATED: January 28, 2026 28

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that Iam an employee of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, 3 that on 13th day of January, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ 4 |}MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE 5 |} MOTIONS, via this Court’s electronic filing system. Parties who are registered with this 6 || Court’s electronic filing system will be served electronically. 7 C. Benjamin Scroggins, ESQ (Bar No. 7902) The Law Firm of 8 C. Benjamin Scroggins, CHTD. 629 S. Casino Center Blvd. 9 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 702-328-5550 10 info@cbscrogginslaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs 11 12 13 AALS < Dh Ad An employee of the 14 Office of the Nevada Attorney General 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28