Christopher Brown v. NDOC

Attorney General 2 KYLE L. HILL, (Bar No.16094) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 (702) 486-0429 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 6 Email: khill@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendant Salisheaun Garcia [8] 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 CHRISTOPHER BROWN, Case No. 3:24-cv-00212-ART-CLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY 14 NDOC, JUDGMENT [FIRST REQUEST] 15 Defendants. 16 Defendant Salisheaun Garcia, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney 17 General for the State of Nevada, and Kyle L. Hill, Deputy Attorney General, hereby moves 18 this Court for an extension of time to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. This is the first 19 request to extend the subject deadline. 20 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 21 I. FACTUAL ANALYSIS 22 This is a pro se prisoner 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim brought by offender, 23 Christopher Brown (Brown). On April 4, 2025, this Court entered a scheduling order with 24 a discovery deadline of October 4, 2025, and a dispositive motion deadline of November 3, 25 2025. ECF No. 25. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(b)(4), a party may request modification of the 3 Court’s scheduling order “only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” See also LR 264 3 (“A motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, 5 or other order must… be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension”). 6 To demonstrate good cause under 16(b)(4), the party seeking modification must show 7 “that, even in the exercise of due diligence, [the party was] unable to meet the timetable 8 set forth in the order.” Cruz v. City of Anaheim, CV 10–03997 MMM (JEMx), 2011 WL 9 13214312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) (citing Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison 10 Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 11 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Prejudice to the opposing party is a factor in determining good 12 cause, though lack of prejudice is “not a prerequisite.” Cruz, 2011 WL 13214312 , at *2. 13 III. ARGUMENT 14 Defense counsel respectfully requests an additional thirty (30) days extension of time 15 to file Defendant’s dispositive motion from the current deadline of November 3, 2025, until 16 December 3, 2025. 17 On September 30, 2025, undersigned counsel was involved in a motor vehicle 18 accident which totaled his vehicle and caused injury to his back. As a result of this motor 19 vehicle accident, undersigned counsel missed several days of work in order to deal with 20 pain and suffering, attend medical appointments to treat his injuries, and purchase a new 21 vehicle. 22 Additionally, undersigned counsel has been diligently working at catching up on a 23 number of matters which were delayed as a result of the cyber attack which affected the 24 Office of the Attorney General’s computer systems. 25 For these reasons, counsel has been unable to allocate the necessary time to draft a 26 properly supported MSJ in this matter. As such, Defendant requests an additional 30 days 27 to file their dispositive motion. Counsel believes an additional 30 days would be enough 28 /// 2 would be required. 3 A. Current Deadlines 4 Dispositive motion deadline: November 3, 2025 5 Joint pretrial order (if no dispositive motions filed): December 3, 2025 6 B. Proposed Deadlines 7 Dispositive motion deadline: December 3, 2025 8 Joint pretrial order (if no dispositive motions filed): January 2, 2026 9 C. Good Cause Supports this Request 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) allows parties to request extensions of 11 deadlines set in the Court’s scheduling order. Good cause exists for the extension. LR 26-3. 12 Counsel for Defendant needs additional time to file Defendants’ MSJ due unexpectedly 13 missing work as a result of an automobile accident and catching up on other matters as a 14 result of the recent statewide cyber attack. 15 Defendants assert that the requisite good cause is present to warrant the requested 16 extension of time. This is the first request to extend the subject deadline. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons above, Defendants assert that good cause is present to extend the 19 current dispositive motion deadline by 30 days from November 3, 2025, to December 3, 20 2025. 21 DATED this 3rd day of November 2025. 22 AARON D. FORD Attorney General [23] 24 By: /s/ Kyle L. Hill KYLE L. HILL, Bar No. 16094 25 Deputy Attorney General 26 Attorneys for Defendant [28] 1 ORDER g || The joint pretrial order is due on the date listed above or 30 days following a decision on dispositive motions. . 3 |/IT IS SO ORDERED. : 4 || Dated: November 3, 2025. 5 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE