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)

Download PDF
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?