Rimer v. State of Nevada ex rel Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 234

ORDER Granting Defendants' 232 Unopposed Motion to Extend Time re Remaining Scheduling Deadlines (First Request). Motions due by 1/30/2017. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/28/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/28/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
Case 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH Document 232 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General JARED M. FROST (Bar No. 11132) Senior Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General Bureau of Litigation Public Safety Division 555 E. Washington Ave, Suite 3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 486-3177 (Telephone) (702) 486-3773 (Facsimile) Email: jfrost@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants Dwight Neven, Harold Wickham, Jennifer Nash, Timothy Filson, Frank Dreesen, Jerry Howell, Joseph Hanson, Romeo Aranas, Cynthia Sablica, and Linda Adams 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 Case No. 2:14−cv−00889−RFB−CWH STANLEY RIMER, 15 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND REMAINING SCHEDULING DEADLINES 16 vs. 17 STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. 18 (FIRST REQUEST) Defendants. 19 20 Defendants Dwight Neven, Harold Wickham, Jennifer Nash, Timothy Filson, 21 Frank Dreesen, Jerry Howell, Joseph Hanson, Romeo Aranas, Cynthia Sablica, and 22 Linda Adams, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General for the State 23 of Nevada, and Jared M. Frost, Senior Deputy Attorney General, hereby move for a thirty 24 (30) day extension of the remaining non-discovery scheduling deadlines in this matter. 25 This unopposed motion is made and based on the following points and authorities, the 26 attached declaration, the pleadings and papers on file, and any additional evidence the 27 Court deems appropriate to consider. 28 /// Page 1 of 5 Case 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH Document 232 Filed 12/27/16 Page 2 of 5 1 I. Background 2 Plaintiff is an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of 3 Corrections. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing an inmate civil rights complaint 4 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. See ECF No. 6 (first-amended complaint filed June 5 30, 2014). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges six (6) causes of action against twenty- 6 four (24) named defendants. On July 21, 2014, the Court issued its screening order and 7 dismissed Counts IV and V, and further dismissed the institutional Defendants. ECF No. 8 9 at 11. In its screening order, the Court interpreted Counts I, II, and III as a single claim 9 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Id. at 6-7. 10 On February 2, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended 11 Complaint in part. ECF No. 9. On March 10, 2015, this Court issued a scheduling order. 12 ECF No. 53. The scheduling order provided that all discovery must be completed by June 13 7, 2015. Id. at 1-2. 14 On August 3, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing Defendants Chang and 15 Manley, and by extension Count VI. ECF No. 195; see also ECF No. 9 at 11 (allowing 16 Count VI to proceed only against Defendant “Nurse Nichole [Manley]”). 17 On April 21, 2016, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ partial motion 18 to dismiss. ECF No. 208. Pursuant to the Court’s order, Defendants Lee, Sowell, Rainone, 19 Leavitt, Cortez-Masto, Sandoval, Miller, Cox, and McDaniel were dismissed with 20 prejudice. Id. at 9. 21 22 On May 5, 2016, Defendants Neven, Wickham, Nash, Filson, Dreesen, Howell, Hanson, Aranas, Sablica, and Adams filed an Answer. ECF No. 209. 23 On May 11, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for a tiered scheduling order. ECF No. 24 210. On August 16, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for a tired scheduling 25 order. ECF No. 222. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the limited discovery permitted by the 26 tiered scheduling order was to close by November 17, 2016, and dispositive motions are 27 due December 28, 2016. Id. On November 28, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions 28 to extend the discovery period and to enlarge the number of requests for admissions Page 2 of 5 Case 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH Document 232 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 5 1 permitted by the Court’s scheduling order. ECF No. 230. This motion for an extension of 2 the remaining scheduling deadlines follows. 3 II. ARGUMENT 4 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), the Court may extend the 5 time to perform an act within a specified time for good cause shown. Defendants submit 6 that their request to extend the remaining non-discovery scheduling deadlines by 30 days 7 is supported by good cause here. The undersigned has been working diligently on a 8 dispositive motion, and had hoped to complete the motion by December 23, 2016, prior to 9 taking planned leave during the week of December 26. Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Counsel). 10 However, the undersigned has been unable to complete the motion due to his 11 responsibilities in other cases and because of the significant number of Defendants, 12 records, and legal issues presented by this matter. Id. In addition, Plaintiff does not 13 oppose the motion, the motion is filed prior to the expiration of the deadline, this is 14 Defendants’ first request for an extension, and the motion is made in good faith and not 15 for the purposes of delay. Id. Defendants propose the following new dates for the 16 remaining scheduling deadlines: 17 January 30, 2017 Dispositive motion deadline 18 February 28, 2017 Joint pretrial order due (suspended until 30 days after the Court rules on any dispositive motions) 19 20 Defendants acknowledge that this motion was not filed more than 21 days prior to 21 the expiration of the dispositive motion deadline, and therefore provide the following 22 information concerning excusable neglect: as noted above, the undersigned has been 23 working diligently on a dispositive motion, and had hoped to complete the motion by 24 December 23, 2016, prior to taking planned leave during the week of December 26. The 25 undersigned is seeking the extension now after determining that his prior estimation of 26 the time needed to complete the motion was overly optimistic, and after arranging to 27 speak with Plaintiff concerning the request on December 27, 2016. 28 /// Page 3 of 5 Case 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH Document 232 Filed 12/27/16 Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 III. CONCLUSION Defendants’ motion to extend the remaining scheduling deadlines should be granted. DATED this 27th day of December, 2016. 5 Respectfully submitted, 6 ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General 7 By: /s/ Jared M. Frost JARED M. FROST (Bar No. 11132) Senior Deputy Attorney General 8 9 Attorneys for Defendants 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. December day of _____________________, 20__. DATED this ______28, 2016 14 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 4 of 5 Case 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH Document 232 Filed 12/27/16 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 I certify that I am an employee of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney 3 General, and that on December 27, 2016, I electronically filed the DEFENDANTS’ 4 UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND REMAINING SCHEDULING DEADLINES 5 (FIRST REQUEST) via this Court’s electronic filing system. Parties that are registered 6 with this Court’s electronic filing system will be served electronically. For those parties 7 not registered, service was made by depositing a copy for mailing in the United States 8 Mail, first-class postage prepaid, at Las Vegas, Nevada to the following: 9 Stanley Rimer, #1069241 Lovelock Correctional Center 1200 Prison Road Lovelock, Nevada 89419 10 11 Plaintiff Pro Se 12 13 14 /s/ Mary Pizzariello An employee of the Office of the Nevada Attorney General 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 5 of 5 Case 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH Document 232-1 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 4 Case 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH Document 232-1 Filed 12/27/16 Page 2 of 4 Case 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH Document 232-1 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 4 Case 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH Document 232-1 Filed 12/27/16 Page 4 of 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?