Opinion
3:18-cv-00283-RCJ-CSD
01-05-2023
TODD EVANS, Plaintiff, v. JAMES DZURENDA, et al., Defendants.
AARON D. FORD Attorney General DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants James Dzurenda, Romeo Aranas, David Mar, and Marsha Johns
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants James Dzurenda, Romeo Aranas, David Mar, and Marsha Johns
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSTION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 136)
(FIRST REQUEST)
Defendants, James Dzurenda, Romeo Aranas, David Mar, and Marsha Johns by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Douglas R. Rands, Senior Deputy Attorney General, move this Court for an order extending the deadline for filing the reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 136). This is the first request the Defendants have made. This Motion is made and based upon the attached Points and Authorities, the papers and pleadings on file, herein, and such other and further information as this Court may deem appropriate.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND ARGUMENT
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by Todd Evans, (Plaintiff), asserting claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Plaintiff sued multiple defendants for events that took place while he was incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). (ECF No. 1-1 at 2).
Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on September 21, 2022. (ECF No. 122). Plaintiff filed multiple requests for additional time (ECF Nos.127 and 132). This Court granted both requests. (ECF Nos. 129 and 133). Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 21, 2022. (ECF No. 136).
Plaintiff's opposition is 65 pages with multiple exhibits. (ECF No. 136). It was filed immediately prior to the holiday season. During the holidays, a significant storm hit the Reno area, which caused power outages in South Reno. While the power has been restored, it caused significant issues. Additionally, Counsel has been working on a Motion for Summary Judgment in another case which is due today, January 4, 2023. For these reasons, Counsel requests an extension of time to file the reply to Plaintiff's opposition.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and provides as follows:
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 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 after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.
Defendants' request is timely and will not hinder or prejudice Plaintiff's case, as the trial date is not imminent. The requested extension of time should permit the Defendants to file a proper and complete reply to assist the Court in determining the validity of the Motion for Summary Judgment. There is no attempt to delay the proceedings. There has not been a previous request. Additionally, Plaintiff received 2 extensions of time to file the Opposition. Therefore, the Defendants request additional time to prepare reply.
II. CONCLUSION
Defendants assert that the requisite good cause and extenuating circumstance is present to warrant the requested extension of time. Therefore, the Defendants requests an extension, until February 1, 2023, to file the Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition (ECF No. 136).
IT IS SO ORDERED.