Antonetti v. Filson ( 2019 )

WAS Dek FV OU VEEL we ETE wr TT i re eee 1 |] AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 || GERRI LYNN HARDCASTLE, Bar No. 13142 Deputy Attorney General 3 || State of Nevada Public Safety Division 4 || 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 5 || Tel: (775) 684-1134 E-mail: ghardcastle@ag.nv.gov 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 || Renee Baker, Ronald Bryant, Gloria Carpenter, Jesse Cox, James Dzurenda, William g || Gittere, Sheryl Foster, Paul Hunt, Tasheena Sandoval, Scott Sisco, David Tristan 9 || and Harold Wickham 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 || JOSEPH ANTONETTI, Case No. 3:17-cv-00605-MMD-CBC 13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 14 |v. ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO 15 |] FILSON, et al., PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (First Request) 16 Defendants. 17 Defendants, Renee Baker, Ronald Bryant, Gloria Carpenter, Jesse Cox, James Dzurenda 18 || William Gittere, Sheryl Foster, Paul Hunt, Tasheena Sandoval, Scott Sisco, David Tristan, and Harolk 19 Wickham, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Gerr 20 || Lynn Hardcastle, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this Honorable Court for an additional thirt 21 |] (30) days, or up to and including Wednesday, September 4, 2019, to answer or otherwise respond t 22 Plaintiff's complaint. 23 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 24 WT. FACTS AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 25 This case is a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 6. Plaintifi 26 || Joseph Antonetti (Plaintiff), is an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of Correction 27 || (NDOC). Id. at 1. He alleges Defendants violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution. Jd. at | 28 || passim. WADE Ged SE VEIN ee UO VOI a TY eo 1 On June 6, 2019, this Court ordered the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to answer o1 2 || otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint on behalf of any defendants for whom it accepted service. 3 |] ECF No. 14 at 4. Accordingly, Defendants answer is due today, August 5, 2019. 4 Unfortunately, Defendants are unable to comply with this deadline. Defendants need additiona 5 || time to respond because the Litigation Division of the Office of the Attorney General is currently severel} 6 || short-staffed, because several Deputy Attorneys General have recently accepted new employment 7 || opportunities. The burden this has placed on the attorneys remaining in the division, including 8 || Defendants’ counsel, is currently overwhelming. 9 Additionally, Defendants’ counsel is currently busily preparing for a trial before the United State: 10 || District Court and finalizing an answering brief due to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Gruber v 11 || Gedney, et al., Docket No. 3:15-cv-00543-RCJ-CBC, ECF No. 142 at 1; Friedman v. Woods, et al. 12 || Docket No. 19-16136, DktEntry 2-1 at 1. 13 Finally, the undersigned has also accepted a new employment opportunity within the OAG anc 14 || will be living the Litigation Division, effective August 19, 2019. New counsel will therefore be appointec 15 || to represent Defendants, and this attorney will need sufficient time to become acquainted with the facts o 16 |j this case. 17 Defendants consequently request that this Court allow them an additional thirty (30) days, or up t 18 || and including Wednesday, September 4, 2019, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint. 19 | HI. LEGAL STANDARD 20 District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v 21 || Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir 22 || 1992). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) governs enlargements of time and provides as follows: 23 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 24 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 25 party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 26 “The proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present to th 27 || Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expired (i.e., a request presentec 28 ' The leadership within this division is addressing this issue and, hopefully, the shortstaffing will be resolved ii thirty (30) to sixty (60) days. Vast UVUUOUOTNIVILEC DY VUCUTICI CO FOU VOINOILG Faye o UIs 1 || before the time then fixed for the purpose in question has expired).” Canup v. Miss. Valley Barge Line 2 || Co., 31 F.R.D. 282, 283 (D. Pa. 1962). The Canup Court explained that “the practicalities of life” (suct 3 || as an attorney’s “conflicting professional engagements” or personal commitments such as vacations. 4 || family activities, illnesses, or death) often necessitate an enlargement of time to comply with a cour 5 {| deadline. Jd. Extensions of time “usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made.’ 6 || Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268, 269 (D. Ohio 1947). The good cause standard considers a party’: 7 || diligence in seeking the continuance or extension. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. 8 || 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 9 || HI. DISCUSSION 10 Defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint is today, August 5 11 || 2019. Therefore, they are seeking additional time in advance of the expiration of the deadline and neec 12 |] demonstrate good cause for the requested enlargement. Good cause exists to enlarge the time for thei 13 |] response, due to (1) the short-staffing in the OAG, (2) counsel’s responsibilities in preparing for tria 14 |j and finalizing an answering brief to the Ninth Circuit, and (3) the forthcoming reassignment of counsel 15 || Defendants are seeking this enlargement in good faith and not for the purpose of any unnecessary delay 16 |] Moreover, Defendants do not perceive any possible prejudice to Plaintiff if this motion is granted 17 || Therefore, Defendants request to be allowed up to and including Wednesday, September 4, 2019, tc 18 || answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint. 19 |} IV. CONCLUSION 20 As stated, Defendants need additional time to respond to Plaintiff's complaint anc 21 || respectfully request that this Court allow them up to and including Wednesday, September 4, 2019, t 22 answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint. 23 DATED this 5th day of August, 2019. 24 AARON D. FORD 35 Attorney General 1 ¢ 26 HE SO ORDERED By: Gag ‘Lala 59 Depuy hyn Bar No. 13142 U.SCMAGISTRATE GE 28 DATED: &f. (2 [ 2 4) / A Attorneys for Defendants Do hE EIS VEINE LT Ns Ne LUT eT OITA TAY VE l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada, and that 3 on this Sth day of August, 2019, I caused to be deposited for mailing a true and correct copy of the 4 || foregoing, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO ANSWER OR 5 || OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (First Request), to the following: 6 7 || Joseph Antonetti, #84533 Lea County Correctional Facility 8 || 6900 West Millen 9 Hobbs, NM 88244 10 wa URN, 12 Afremployee of the B Office of the Attorney General 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28