Evans v. Dzurenda et al

Filing 138

ORDER granting ECF No. 137 Motion to Extend Time. Reply due by 2/1/2023 as to ECF Nos. 136 Response, 122 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney on 1/5/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJS)

Case 3:18-cv-00283-RCJ-CSD Document 138 Filed 01/05/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572
Senior Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
James Dzurenda, Romeo Aranas,
David Mar, and Marsha Johns

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

TODD EVANS,

11

Case No. 3:18-cv-00283-RCJ-CSD
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSTION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 136)

16

(First Request)
Defendants, James Dzurenda, Romeo Aranas, David Mar, and Marsha Johns by and through

17

counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Douglas R. Rands, Senior

18

Deputy Attorney General, move this Court for an order extending the deadline for filing the reply to

19

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 136). This is the first request the

20

Defendants have made. This Motion is made and based upon the attached Points and Authorities, the

21

papers and pleadings on file, herein, and such other and further information as this Court may deem

22

appropriate.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

23
24

I.

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND ARGUMENT

25

This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by Todd Evans, (Plaintiff), asserting claims

26

arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference

27

to serious medical needs.

28

///
1

Case 3:18-cv-00283-RCJ-CSD Document 138 Filed 01/05/23 Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff sued multiple defendants for events that took place while he was incarcerated at

1
2

Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). (ECF No. 1-1 at 2).

3

Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on September 21, 2022. (ECF No. 122).

4

Plaintiff filed multiple requests for additional time (ECF Nos.127 and 132). This Court granted both

5

requests. (ECF Nos. 129 and 133). Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 21, 2022. (ECF No.

6

136).
Plaintiff’s opposition is 65 pages with multiple exhibits.

7

(ECF No. 136).

It was filed

8

immediately prior to the holiday season. During the holidays, a significant storm hit the Reno area,

9

which caused power outages in South Reno. While the power has been restored, it caused significant

10

issues. Additionally, Counsel has been working on a Motion for Summary Judgment in another case

11

which is due today, January 4, 2023. For these reasons, Counsel requests an extension of time to file

12

the reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and provides as follows:

13

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.

14
15
16
17

Defendants’ request is timely and will not hinder or prejudice Plaintiff’s case, as the trial date

18
19

is not imminent.

The requested extension of time should permit the Defendants to file a proper and

20

complete reply to assist the Court in determining the validity of the Motion for Summary Judgment.

21

There is no attempt to delay the proceedings. There has not been a previous request. Additionally,

22

Plaintiff received 2 extensions of time to file the Opposition. Therefore, the Defendants request

23

additional time to prepare reply.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

Case 3:18-cv-00283-RCJ-CSD Document 138 Filed 01/05/23 Page 3 of 3

1

II.

CONCLUSION

2

Defendants assert that the requisite good cause and extenuating circumstance is present to

3

warrant the requested extension of time. Therefore, the Defendants requests an extension, until

4

February 1, 2023, to file the Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 136).

5

DATED this 4th day of January, 2023.
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General

6
7
8

By:

/s/ Douglas R. Rands
DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572
Senior Deputy Attorney General

9
10

Attorneys for Defendants

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 5, 2023.

14
15

_____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3