Sitton v. LVMPD et al

Filing 36

ORDER that 30 Motion to Extend Time to Respond is GRANTED. Plaintiff will have an additional 21 days from the date of this order to respond to the three outstanding motions to dismiss. FURTHER ORDERED that 35 Second Motion to Extend Time is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

WILL SITTON,

8

Case No. 2:17-CV-111 JCM (VCF)
Plaintiff(s),

9

v.

10

ORDER

LVMPD, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court is plaintiff Will Sitton’s first motion to extend time to file a
response to multiple outstanding motions to dismiss.1 (ECF No. 30); see (ECF Nos. 21, 24, 28).

15
16

Also before the court is plaintiff’s second motion to extend time to file a response to
multiple outstanding motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 35).

17

On November 15, 2017, defendants Jaqueline M. Bluth and Elissa Luzaich filed a motion

18

to dismiss. (ECF No. 21). Also on November 15, 2017, defendants Cadet, Camp, Mechan,

19

Neville, Rohan, Saavedra, Senior, Sloan, and Snowden filed a partial motion to dismiss. (ECF

20

No. 24). Also on November 15, 2017, defendant David Farrara filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF

21

No. 28). Responses to the motions were due on November 29, 2017.

22

On November 29, 2017, plaintiff filed his first motion to extend time to respond to

23

defendant’s outstanding motions.2 According to plaintiff’s motion, he does not have continuous

24
25
While the docket report lists plaintiff’s first motion as a “Motion to Extend Time . . . to
Respond re 28 Motion to Dismiss,” (ECF No. 30), the motion clearly references all three
outstanding motions to dismiss. See id. As the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court construes
his filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007).
1

26
27
28

2

30).
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Plaintiff mailed the motion from Ely State Prison on November 27, 2017. See (ECF No.

1

access to a legal library (presumably due to his incarceration), a problem that has been further

2

complicated by closings due to the holidays. Id. Given his self-representation, he submits that he

3

has not had enough time to adequately respond to defendants’ motions. Id. He requests an

4

additional 21 days to respond to defendants’ motions to dismiss. Id.

5

Good cause appearing,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to extend time (ECF No. 30) be, and

7

the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiff will have an additional 21 days from the date of this

8

order to respond to the three outstanding motions to dismiss.

9
10
11
12
13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s second motion to extend time (ECF No. 35)
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot.
DATED December 13, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-