Peters v. Raymond et al

Filing 103

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (ECF No. 81 ) is DENIED and his Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 101 ) is granted. Plaintiff is afforded until 7/15/2018 to submit his opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 88 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 5/17/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 RICHARD W. PETERS, 9 10 11 12 13 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) C/O RAYMOND, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________) 3:15-cv-00493-RCJ-WGC ORDER 14 Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings (ECF No. 81). Plaintiff’s motion 15 is based upon an alleged debilitating mental condition. Plaintiff’s motion does not submit any medical 16 records to support his contention. He provides no suggestion as to how long any stay should be 17 implemented, if granted. 18 Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s “motion to stay the proceedings indefinitely due to his alleged 19 inability to litigate the case.” (ECF No. 96 at 1.) As the court noted above, Defendants argue Plaintiff 20 has not attempted to secure his medical records through kites, grievances, etc. (Id. at 2.) Defendants 21 make the observation Plaintiff has also “demonstrated his ability to litigate, including presenting legal 22 analysis, through his motions such as the Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 70) and presentation during 23 oral argument before this court. (ECF No. 74.) There is not good cause to delay the proceedings 24 indefinitely.” (Id. at 2, ll. 26-28.) 25 Plaintiff did not file a reply memorandum. He did, however, file a Motion for Enlargement of 26 Time wherein he requests, if the court denies his motion to stay, an extension to July 15, 2018, to submit 27 his reply to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 101). 28 /// 1 Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 81) is DENIED. If the motion were to be granted, the case 2 would be stayed indefinitely. As Defendants argue, this case has already been pending for over two (2) 3 years, and “Defendants are entitled to a speedy resolution of the case.” (ECF No. 96 at 3.) 4 Anticipating a request by Plaintiff to obtain an extension of time, Defendants state they “ 5 not oppose a reasonable enlargement of time to oppose the motion . . .” (Id. at 3.) The court therefore 6 grants Plaintiff’s motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 101). Plaintiff is afforded until July 15, 7 2018, to submit his opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 88), a time 8 period which is approximately sixty (60) days past the current deadline for Plaintiff to oppose 9 Defendants’ motion (i.e., May 14, 2018). Barring extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances, no 10 further extensions will be granted. Any reply memorandum by Defendants shall be filed in due course 11 as provided in the Local Rules. 12 DATED: May 17, 2018. 13 ____________________________________ WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?