Morris v. Aranas ( 2021 )

AARON D. FORD 2 Attorney General KATLYN M. BRADY (Bar No. 14173) 3 Senior Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada 4 Office of the Attorney General 555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 486-0661 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3773 (fax) Email: katlynbrady@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca, Shelly Conlin, Richard Long, David Mar, 9 Melissa Mitchell, and William Miller 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 CHARLES MORRIS, Case No. 3:18-cv-00310-RCJ-CLB 14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO 15 v. PLAINTIFF’S OMNIBOUS OPPOSITION AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 ROMEO ARANAS, et al., JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 75) (FIRST REQUEST) 17 Defendants. 18 Defendants Romeo Aranas, Isidro Baca, Shelly Conlin, Richard Long, David Mar, 19 Melissa Mitchell, and William Miller, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney 20 General for the State of Nevada, and Katlyn M. Brady, Senior Deputy Attorney General, 21 request this Court extend the deadline to file a reply/opposition from August 10, 2021, to 22 September 10, 2021. 23 I. INTRODUCTION 24 Defendants submit that good cause exists to extend the deadline to reply/oppose 25 Plaintiff’s omnibus deadline from August 11, 2021, to September 10, 2021. As an initial 26 matter, Plaintiff’s combined motion violates the Local Rules as he failed to file the 27 document twice. As a result, Defendants received only a deadline to file a reply in support 28 of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Upon review of the document, it is clear 2 document twice. 3 Further, the prior counsel assigned to defend this matter recently left state 4 employment thus necessitating the reassignment of this case to another attorney. The 5 assigned attorney, Deputy Attorney General Alexander J. Smith, recently returned to the 6 office after going on extended leave to complete the Nevada Bar Exam (he is barred in New 7 York and is allowed to practice temporarily on a Nevada license pending his successful 8 passing of the Nevada Bar). Thus, counsel needs additional time to clear the caseload that 9 accrued during his leave so that DAG Smith can prepare for the reply/opposition. 10 Finally, Plaintiff filed a 75-page omnibus opposition and counter-motion for 11 summary judgment. Responding to this motion will take an inordinate amount of work as 12 the newly assigned counsel must familiarize himself with the underlying motion for 13 summary judgment and evidence in this matter. 14 Accordingly, Defendants seek an extension of thirty days to allow for a reply and 15 opposition to Plaintiff’s omnibus motion. 16 II. BACKGROUND 17 The operative document in this matter is the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). 18 ECF No. 43. Plaintiff alleged a deliberate indifference claim regarding the alleged denial 19 of a surgery and deliberate indifference regarding the denial of a bottom tier classification. 20 Id. at 5. 21 On June 21, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging: 22 (1) Defendants were not indifferent, (2) there was no personal participation, and 23 (3) Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 65. 24 On July 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed an omnibus motion opposing Defendants’ motion for 25 summary judgment and seeking summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. ECF No. 75. In 26 violation of LR IC 2-2, Plaintiff did not file this motion twice and thus the Court did not 27 impose a deadline for Defendants to oppose the motion for summary judgment. 28 /// 1 Additionally, on July 27, 2021, prior defense counsel left state employment, 2 ||necessitating the reassignment of this matter. This matter was reassigned to Deputy 3 || Attorney General Alexander J. Smith, who was on leave attending the Nevada Bar exam. 4 || Upon DAG Smith’s return, he has worked significant hours attempting to clear his caseload 5 he can prepare a reply and opposition in this matter. 6 LEGAL ARGUMENT 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(B)(1) holds a court may extend time to respond 8 |} upon a showing of good cause. Under Rule 6, good cause is not a rigorous or high standard. 9 || Ahanchion v. Kenan Pictures, 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). 10 Defendants move to extend the deadline to reply and oppose Plaintiff's motion from 11 || August 10, 2021, to September 10, 2021. Good cause supports this request as this matter 12 || has been reassigned to a new attorney and given the length of Plaintiff's motion, additional 13 is necessary to ensure a competent and sufficient response. 14 ||TV. CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons above, Defendants respectfully request this Court extend the 16 deadline to reply and oppose Plaintiff's motion from August 10, 2021, to September 10, 17 || 2021. 18 DATED this 10th day of August, 2021. 19 AARON D. FORD 20 Attorney General By: /s/ Katlyn M. Brady 21 KATLYN M. BRADY (Bar No. 14178) 99 Senior Deputy Attorney General 93 Attorneys for Defendants 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 95 Dated: ust 11, 2021 . 26 UNITED ST. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 2 I certify that I am an employee of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, 3 and that on August 10, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 4 FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OMNIBOUS 5 OPPOSITION AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 75) 6 (FIRST REQUEST) via this Court’s electronic filing system. Parties who are registered 7 with this Court’s electronic filing system will be served electronically. 8 Charles Morris, #62773 Northern Nevada Correctional Center 9 P.O. Box 7000 Carson City, Nevada 89701 10 Email: nncclawlibrary@doc.nv.gov Plaintiff, Pro Se 11 12 /s/ Carol A. Knight 13 CAROL A. KNIGHT, an employee of the Office of the Nevada Attorney General 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28