Gibson v. Dzurenda et al
Filing
121
ORDER granting ECF No. 119 Motion to Extend Time : Notice of acceptance of service is due by 12/3/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 11/5/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
ANDREA M. DOMINGUEZ, Bar No. 15209
Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Public Safety Division
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717
Tel: (775) 684-1163
E-mail: adominguez@ag.nv.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
James Dzurenda, Miguel Flores-Nava,
Paul Hunt and Brian Williams
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
13
CRAIG OTIS GIBSON,
14
Case No. 3:18-cv-00190-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE THE NOTICE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
(FIRST REQUEST)
JAMES DZURENDA, et al.
Defendants.
17
18
19
Defendants, James Dzurenda, Miguel Flores-Nava, Paul Hunt, and Brian Williams,
20
by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Andrea
21
M. Dominguez, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move for an extension of time to file the
22
notice of acceptance of service. This motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points
23
and Authorities and on all papers and pleadings on file.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
Page 1
1
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
FACTUAL ANALYSIS
3
This is an inmate civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Craig
4
Otis Gibson (Gibson) is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections
5
(NDOC), currently housed at Ely State Prison, (ESP). Gibson alleges violations of the First,
6
Fourth, and Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 111)
7
On October 20, 2020 Gibson filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 112.) On
8
October 20, 2020 the Court entered an Order screening the second amended complaint, and
9
allowing Gibson to proceed on fourteen claims, naming forty two (42) total defendants.
10
(ECF No. 111.)
11
As counsel for Defendants was only recently assigned this case, Defendants
12
respectfully request an extension of time of thirty days to file the notice of acceptance of
13
service. Counsel requires additional time to familiarize herself with the claims and case.
14
Further, Plaintiff’s Second Amended complaint names thirty one (31) new defendants. The
15
undersigned needs additional time to make a good faith effort to identify the new defendants.
16
II.
17
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 6(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governs extensions of time and states:
18
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.
19
20
21
22
Good cause exists to extend the time to file the notice of acceptance of service.
23
Defendants’ request will not hinder or prejudice Plaintiff’s case but will allow for a thorough
24
opportunity to try and identify the thirty one (31) additional defendants. The requested
25
extension of time should permit Defendants time to adequately research the named
26
individuals.
27
///
28
///
Page 2
1
III.
CONCLUSION
2
Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that their motion for an
3
extension of time for a period of thirty days, to December 3, 2020, in which to file the
4
notice of acceptance of service be granted.
5
DATED this 4th day of November, 2020.
6
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
7
By: /s/ Andrea M. Dominguez
ANDREA M. DOMINGUEZ, Bar No. 15209
Deputy Attorney General
8
9
Attorneys for Defendants
10
11
ORDER
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
DATED: November 5, 2020.
15
16
_____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 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?