Pickett v. Valdez et al

Filing 98

ORDER granting ECF No. 97 Motion to Extend Time. Defendants have until February 19, 2021 to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 96 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 2/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

Download PDF
Case 3:17-cv-00567-MMD-WGC Document 98 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AARON D. FORD Attorney General JEFFREY A. COGAN, Bar No. 4569 Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Public Safety Division 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1261 E-mail: jcogan@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants Paul Valdez and Harold Wickham 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 CARY J. PICKET, Case No. 3:17-cv-00567-MMD-WGC Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF CARY J. PICKETT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 96) VALDEZ, et al., Defendants. 14 15 Defendants, Paul Valdez and Harold Wickham, by and through counsel, Aaron D. 16 Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Jeffrey A. Cogan, Deputy Attorney 17 General, hereby files this Motion for Extension to File Opposition to Plaintiff Cary J. 18 Pickett’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF NO. 96). POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 19 20 This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by Nevada Department of 21 Corrections (NDOC) inmate Cary J. Pickett (Pickett), #57591, asserting a single 22 surviving retaliation claim arising under the First Amendment via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 23 See ECF No. 4 at 6. On December 10, 2020, this Court, at a telephone status conference 24 relating to the status of the Office of the Attorney General’s receipt of responses to 25 written questions of percipient witness Clarence Cameron, the Court set the dispositive 26 motion deadline to February 26, 2021. ECF 93. Pickett file a Motion for Summary 27 Judgment on January 22, 2021, requiring a response by February 12, 2021. ECF No. 96. 28 /// 1 Case 3:17-cv-00567-MMD-WGC Document 98 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3 1 Defendants’ counsel is suffering from a vitreous hemorrhage, a bleeding of blood 2 vessels in his left eye, causing blindness in his left eye. As such, it is more challenging 3 to work as quickly as Defendants’ counsel had expected, causing delays to Defendants’ 4 counsel workflow. 5 undersigned was required to respond to motions in other cases, relating to the same 6 inability to see. Additionally, Defendants’ counsel’s workload increased as the 7 Defendants’ counsel had hoped that the vessels would be repaired through 8 surgery set for December 21, 2020, which was continued to February 3, 2020, as the eye 9 had not yet healed enough to commence surgery. On February 3, 2021, the 10 ophthalmologist determined to move the surgery to March 19, 2021, to allow for 11 additional healing. 12 I. LEGAL STANDARD 13 “For good cause, the court may extend the time prescribed by these rules or by its 14 order to perform any act or may permit an act to be done after that time expires.” Fed. 15 R. Civ. P. 26(b). 16 needed, is to present to the Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed 17 has expired (i.e., a request presented before the time fixed for the purpose in question 18 has expired). 19 Pickett v. Valdez, Case No. 3:17-cv-00567-MMD-WGC, 2019 WL 2570524, *2 (D. Nev. 20 June 21, 2019) citing Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D. Pa. 21 1962). The Canup Court explained that the “practicalities of life” (such as an attorney’s 22 “conflicting professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations, 23 family activities, illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply 24 with a court deadline. Id. Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of 25 good cause, if timely made.” Id. citing Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D. Ohio 26 1947). The good cause standard considers a party’s diligence in seeking the continuance 27 or extension. See In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, 715 28 /// “The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is 2 Case 3:17-cv-00567-MMD-WGC Document 98 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3 1 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 2 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 3 II. ARGUMENT 4 The undersigned has sought to rectify his issue with his eye and adjusting his 5 workload to timely respond to his obligations as Defendants’ counsel. The undersigned 6 seeks and additional one week to February 19, 2021 to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for 7 Summary Judgment. ECF No. 96. The Response is in its final stages and could be filed 8 before February 19, 2021, but it is more prudent to seek an extension of seven days to 9 ensure a second request for extension will not be filed. There would be no delay to the 10 proceedings as the dispositive motion deadline is February 26, 2021 and thus, if 11 Defendants file their motion for summary judgment, the Court would not rule until 12 Pickett filed a response by March 19, 2021 and any replies were subsequently be filed 13 on the motions for summary judgment. 14 15 16 17 DATED this 12th of February, 2021. AARON D. FORD Attorney General By: 18 /s/ Jeffrey A. Cogan JEFFREY A. COGAN, Bar No. 4569 Deputy Attorney General 19 Attorney for Defendants 20 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________ U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: February 16, 2021 25 26 27 28 3

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?