Opinion
2:18-cv-00008-JAD-BNW
11-08-2022
TONEY A. WHITE, Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE LEAVITT; ET AL. Defendants.
LYSSA S. ANDERSON Nevada Bar No. 5781 KRISTOPHER J. KALKOWSKI Nevada Bar No. 14892 KAEMPFER CROWELL Attorneys for Defendants, Daniel Holm, Craig Garnette, Gary Ramirez (erroneously sued as P. Ramirez), Alex Gonzalez (erroneously sued as Alex Gonzales), and Ernest Spear
LYSSA S. ANDERSON Nevada Bar No. 5781 KRISTOPHER J. KALKOWSKI Nevada Bar No. 14892 KAEMPFER CROWELL Attorneys for Defendants, Daniel Holm, Craig Garnette, Gary Ramirez (erroneously sued as P. Ramirez), Alex Gonzalez (erroneously sued as Alex Gonzales), and Ernest Spear
LVMPD DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF
BRENDA WEKSLER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendants Daniel Holm, Craig Garnette, Gary Ramirez, Alex Gonzalez, and Ernest Spear (collectively, “LVMPD Defendants”), through their counsel, Kaempfer Crowell, move for a one-week extension of time to file a Reply in support of their Motion to (1) Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status and (2) Issue an Order to Show Cause as to Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice, (ECF Nos. 75, 76). The current due date for the Reply is November 10, 2022. The extended due date will be November 17, 2022. Good cause supports this extension based on an unexpected medical procedure for the undersigned counsel, as further explained in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Toney White is pursuing this lawsuit in his pro se capacity while incarcerated at the High Desert State Prison. One month after being served with this lawsuit for the first time, LVMPD Defendants filed the now-pending Motion to (1) Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) Status and (2) Issue an Order to Show Cause as to Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice, (ECF Nos. 75, 76). This Motion concerns Plaintiff's apparently fraudulent procurement of IFP status so that he could proceed without paying the filing fees required from all litigants when bringing a civil lawsuit in this District.
Twelve days after LVMPD Defendants filed their Motion, (ECF Nos. 75, 76), Plaintiff requested a thirty extension of time to file a Response. (Mot. Ext. Time, ECF No. 77) (filed October 12, 2022). The Court granted Plaintiff's request, making the due date November 13, 2022. (Order, ECF No. 78). Plaintiff ultimately filed his Response on November 3, 2022. Accordingly, the deadline for LVMPD Defendants' Reply is now November 10, 2022.
II. ARGUMENT
LVMPD Defendants request a one-week extension of time to file a Reply in support of their Motion to (1) Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) Status and (2) Issue an Order to Show Cause as to Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice, (ECF Nos. 75, 76). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and this District's Local Rule IA 6-1 govern this request. Both Rules impose a “good cause” standard to secure an extension of a deadline that has not yet expired. “Good cause” is “a non-rigorous standard” that is satisfied when the movant provides reasons why adequate briefing cannot occur under current deadlines. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline should “normally . . . be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Id. (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)).
Here, good cause exists for a one-week extension of time based on the undersigned having an unexpected and urgent surgery scheduled for November 7, 2022. The undersigned will likely be out of the office until November 10, 2022, which is the same day as the current deadline to file the at-issue Reply. A one-week extension of time will ensure that counsel has enough time to properly brief the potentially case-dispositive issues raised in LVMPD Defendant's Motion.
No prejudice will occur to the parties from a one week extension. Discovery in this case will continue on its current schedule, and the parties will not have to re-schedule hearings, depositions, or other critical events in this case if the Court grants this limited extension of time.
III. CONCLUSION
LVMPD Defendants respectfully request a one-week extension of time to file a Reply in support of their Motion to (1) Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status and (2) Issue an Order to Show Cause as to Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice, (ECF Nos. 75, 76), so that the due date will change from November 10, 2022, to November 17, 2022.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 81 is GRANTED for good cause shown.
IT IS SO ORDERED