Tagle v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 207

ORDER granting 200 Motion to Extend Time; Re: 189 Motion. Responses due by 6/21/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Nevada Attorney General
GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Bar No. 13142
Deputy Attorney General
ERIN L. ALBRIGHT, Bar No. 9953
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

8
9

Attorneys for Defendant
Christopher Beecroft

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13
14

VICTOR TAGLE,

15

Case No. 2:15-cv-02143-RFB-CWH
Plaintiff,

16
17

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR AUTHORITIES TO INVESTIGATE
SAGUARO CORRECTIONAL CENTER’S
USE OF FORCE AT ECF NO. 189
(First Request)

vs.
STATE OF NEVADA, NDOC,
NDOC’S EMPLOYEES, et al.,

18
Defendants.
19
20
21

Defendant, Christopher Beecroft, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General

22

of the State of Nevada, Gerri Lynn Hardcastle and Erin L. Albright, Deputies Attorney General, hereby

23

files his motion for enlargement of time to file a response to Plaintiff’s request for authorities to investigate

24

Saguaro Correctional Center’s use of force at ECF No. 189. This motion is based on Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

6(b)(1), the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the papers and pleadings on file herein.

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1
2

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.

INTRODUCTION & RELEVANT FACTS
As this Court is aware, this case is a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF

3
4

No. 37.

Plaintiff, Victor Tagle (Plaintiff), is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of

5

Corrections (NDOC). Id.

6

Arizona. ECF No. 171 at 1.

He is currently housed at the Saguaro Correctional Center (SCC) in Eloy,

7

In his request at ECF No. 189, which is filled will all sorts of unnecessary obscenities, Plaintiff

8

alleges that correctional officers at SCC spray use excessive force upon inmates and that SCC medical staff

9

are deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

In order to properly respond to Plaintiff’s

10

allegations, Defendant has again sought records from SCC. Defendant has also sought declarations from

11

SCC staff. Unfortunately, counsel has not yet received the relevant records, nor have SCC staff returned

12

the executed declarations. Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests an additional two weeks to respond

13

to Plaintiff’s request. Specifically, Defendant requests that this Court order that he be permitted to file his

14

response on or before June 21, 2018.

15

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

16

District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v.

17

Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir.

18

1992). FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows:

19

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.

20
21
22

“The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present to the

23

Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expired (i.e., a request presented

24

before the time then fixed for the purpose in question has expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line

25

Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D.Pa. 1962). The Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (such

26

as an attorney’s “conflicting professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations,

27

family activities, illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a court

28

deadline.

Id.

Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made.”
2

1

Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D.Ohio 1947). The good cause standard considers a party’s

2

diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

3

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

4

III.

DISCUSSION

5

Good cause exists to enlarge the time for Defendant to file his response to Plaintiff’s request at

6

ECF No. 189. Defendant seeks two additional weeks to file his response, and he is moving the Court

7

for this enlargement prior to the expiration of the original deadline.

8

additional time to respond to the affidavit, so that he can properly substantiate his arguments against

9

granting Plaintiff the relief he seeks. Finally, this short extension will not unfairly prejudice Plaintiff.

10

Furthermore, Defendant needs

This extension is also necessary based on the volumes of meritless, redundant, and barely

11

comprehensible documents Plaintiff files.

12

documents in this case alone: “Affidavit in Support of the Case!” at ECF No. 193; “Affidavit in Regard

13

Hardcastle’s Skulduggeries [sic]” at ECF No. 194; “Answer to Racketeer Hardcastle’s Opposition –

14

(ECF No. 176) & Motion for Discovery & Protection!” at ECF No. 195; “Motion to Request, [sic]

15

Order of Injunction” at ECF No. 196; and “Affidavit[ ] and Motion to be Removed from Saguaro!” at

16

ECF No. 197; and “Affidavit!” at ECF No. 198. Since the beginning of this year, Plaintiff has filed no

17

less than thirteen (13) affidavits (many of which were filed on the same day), 1 eight (8) requests to be

18

transferred, 2 five (5) discovery motions (two (2) of which were filed on the same day), 3 and two (2)

19

requests for authorities to investigate. 4

20

this Court must enlarge the time for Defendant to respond. 5

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

For example, today, June 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed six (6)

Just by virtue of the number of Plaintiff’s filings in this case,

1

See ECF Nos. 171, 172, 178, 179, 188, 180, 184, 185, 191, 193, 194, 197, 198.
See ECF Nos. 147, 150, 163, 184, 185, 197.
3 See ECF Nos. 159, 161, 176, 192, 195.
4 See ECF Nos. 148, 189.
5 Defendant asserts that this case, this Court, and this Defendant and his counsel will be mired in Plaintiff’s baseless filings
until this Court sanctions Plaintiff or relieves Defendant from the responsibility of responding to each and every filing.
2

3

1

IV.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests this Court grant his Motion for

3

Enlargement of Time and allow him to file his response to Plaintiff’s request for authorities to investigate

4

at ECF No. 189 on or before June 21, 2018.

5

DATED this 7th day of June, 2018.
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General

6
7

By:

8

GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE
Deputy Attorney General
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division

9
10

Attorneys for Defendant

11
12
13
14
15

June 25, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada, and that

3

on the 8th day of June, 2018, I caused a copy of the foregoing, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

4

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

5

AUTHORITIES TO INVESTIGATE SAGUARO CORRECTIONAL CENTER’S USE OF

6

FORCE AT ECF NO. 189, to be served, by U.S. Mail postage paid to:

7

VICTOR TAGLE #1080239
SAGUARO CORRECTIONAL CENTER
1252 EAST ARICA ROAD
ELOY, ARIZONA 85131

8
9

__

10
An employee of the
Office of the Attorney General

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5