Johnson v. Barrett et al, No. 2:2017cv02304 - Document 85 (D. Nev. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting 83 Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Motion granted as Unopposed. Motions due by 11/25/2020. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/27/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 9/14/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. Barrett et al Doc. 85 Case 2:17-cv-02304-RFB-BNW Document 83 Filed 08/26/20 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 grant as unopposed under LR 7-2(d); P did not respond. AARON D. FORD Attorney General MATTHEW P. FEELEY (Bar No. 13336) Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 555 East Washington Avenue Suite 3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 486-3120 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) Email: mfeeley@ag.nv.gov 7 8 Attorneys for Defendants Regina Barrett, Christopher Harris, Julio Mesa, and Timothy Knatz 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, 15 Case No. 2:17-cv-02304-RFB-BNW Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 REGINA BARRETT, et al., 18 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND THE REMAINING CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES (FIRST REQUEST) Defendants. 19 20 Defendants Regina Barrett, Christopher Harris, Julio Mesa, and Timothy Knatz, by 21 and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Matthew P. Feeley, 22 Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, move to 23 extend the remaining case management deadlines for either a date based on a pending 24 decision of the court, or an additional ninety (90) days. Defendants’ Motion is made and 25 based on the following memorandum of points and authorities, Rule 6 of the Federal Rules 26 of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 26-4, the pleadings and papers on file, and any other evidence 27 the Court deems appropriate to consider. 28 /// Page 1 of 7 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:17-cv-02304-RFB-BNW Document 83 Filed 08/26/20 Page 2 of 7 1 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION 3 Defendants are hereby respectfully requesting an extension to the remaining case 4 management deadlines which include only the deadline to file dispositive motions and to 5 file a joint pretrial order. Defendants submit that there are important procedural issues 6 still pending before the court which may affect any decision on any summary judgment 7 matter. 8 II. 9 10 This is an inmate civil rights action. Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson (Johnson) is incarcerated by the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). 11 12 On October 30, 2018, the Court issued its Screening Order and Johnson’s Complaint was filed. ECF Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. 13 14 On April 1, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Part. ECF No. 23. 15 16 BACKGROUND On August 20, 2019, This Court Dismissed Defendant Gilmore without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). ECF No. 52. 17 On February 27, 2020, this Court Ordered that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the 18 Complaint was granted in part and denied in part. The Court Ordered that “Defendant 19 may re-file the Motion to Dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity in three (3) weeks.” 20 ECF No. 66. 21 On March 19, 2020, Defendants re-filed their Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to the 22 Order of the Court (ECF No. 66). ECF No. 68. The Court has not yet ruled on that matter. 23 On March 24, 2020, Johnson filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. ECF No. 24 69. Defendant’s filed an Opposition. ECF No. 73. The Court has not yet ruled on that matter 25 either. 26 On July 6, 2020, Johnson filed a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 27 80. 28 /// Page 2 of 7 Case 2:17-cv-02304-RFB-BNW Document 83 Filed 08/26/20 Page 3 of 7 1 2 On July 27, 2020, Defendants moved for an extension in which to respond to Johnson’s Motion. (ECF No. 82). That motion is also still pending before this Court. 3 Defendants now submit this Motion to extend the remaining case management 4 deadlines. 5 III. 6 7 APPLICABLE LAW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and provides as follows: 8 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. 9 10 11 12 IV. ARGUMENT – GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO EXTEND THE DEADLINES 13 On July 27, 2020, Defendants moved for an extension in which to respond to 14 Johnson’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 82). That motion is still pending before 15 this Court. However, for the same reasons put forth in that Motion, Defendants also request 16 an extension to the remaining case management deadlines. 17 Specifically, there are still undecided issues related to the Complaint in this matter. 18 Although Johnson brought claims against Timothy Knatz (Knatz) and Christopher Harris 19 (Harris), Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss these defendants based on qualified 20 immunity. 1 ECF No. 68. Johnson opposed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 74. The 21 Court has yet to rule on this motion and as such the parties are unaware if the claims 22 against Knatz and Harris will proceed or not. Knatz and Harris’ involvement in this matter 23 is unclear as it is unknow if they will continue as Defendants or just potential witnesses. 24 Additionally, Johnson filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint. ECF No. 69. 25 Defendant’s opposed this motion. ECF No. 73. Although Ryan Gilmore (Gilmore) was 26 dismissed without prejudice from this matter (ECF No. 52), Johnson has re-named him in 27 1 28 Defendants Motion to Dismiss was re-submitted pursuant to the the Order of the Court (ECF No. 66). ECF No. 68. Page 3 of 7 Case 2:17-cv-02304-RFB-BNW Document 83 Filed 08/26/20 Page 4 of 7 1 his proposed amended complaint and is attempting to bring Gilmore back into this action. 2 ECF No. 69-1 at 2:14. Johnson also attempts to bring in additional Defendants to this 3 matter to include James Dzurenda (Dzurenda), Jerry Howell (Howell), and Jo Gentry 4 (Gentry). Id. at 2-3. Johnson also has attempted to add additional counts to his Complaint, 5 bringing new claims of deliberate indifference, excessive force, conspiracy, wonton and 6 unnecessary verbal sexual abuse, assault and battery, cruel and unusual punishment, and 7 supervisory liability. Id. at 12. 8 Defendants have filed an opposition to Johnson’s motion to file an amended 9 complaint, however the Court has yet to rule on this matter. As it stands, Johnson’s original 10 Complaint is the operative Complaint, however, were the Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion 11 to amend, that would certainly change. 12 Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment primarily focuses on Defendant 13 Barrett, however he also discusses the alleged actions of Gilmore ECF No. 80. Gilmore was 14 dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) (ECF No. 52) but Johnson moved to 15 bring Gilmore back into this action. ECF No. 69. Johnson has levied numerous allegations 16 against Gilmore in his partial motion for summary judgment; none of which undersigned 17 counsel can reasonably respond to, having never represented Gilmore in this matter, and 18 knowing that Gilmore could possibly still be brought in as a Defendant. A defense of Barrett 19 necessarily depends on the pending decisions before the court of whether or not Plaintiff 20 may amend his Complaint. The same issue applies to the Court’s pending decision on 21 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Based on these two pending issues, it is unclear as to 22 whether or not Knatz, Harris, Gilmore, Dzurenda, Howell, or Gentry are even going to be 23 defendants in this matter, and it is unknown as to what claims will be allowed to proceed. 24 Defendants are not able bring a Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the 25 currently standing defendants and claims without knowing if certain defendants will be 26 dismissed, certain defendants may be added, and whether additional claims may proceed. 27 Any discussion of the underlying facts will certainly involve issues that may prejudice these 28 other defendants and issues. Page 4 of 7 Case 2:17-cv-02304-RFB-BNW Document 83 Filed 08/26/20 Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 V. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY LOCAL RULE 26-4 Defendants provide the following information in accordance with Local Rule 26-4. A. Discovery Completed 4 Defendants Barrett and Knatz have both responded to written discovery served by 5 Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendants have taken the deposition of Plaintiff. 6 B. 7 No additional discovery is needed at this time. Additional discover may be needed 8 depending on the outcome of the currently pending Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 68) and 9 Motion to Amend (ECF No. 69) The remaining case management deadlines are: Discovery that Remains to be Completed 10 Dispositive motion deadline: August 27, 2020 11 Joint pretrial order (if no dispositive motions filed): September 28, 2020 12 C. Reasons Why the Deadlines Were Not Satisfied 13 No remaining deadlines have failed to have been satisfied. However, as argued 14 above, The Court’s decision on these pending matters may affect the issues that will be in 15 dispute in any Motion for Summary Judgment. 16 D. Proposed Schedule for Remaining Deadlines 17 Defendants respectfully request that the Dispositive Motion deadline be extended 18 until 30 days after a decision is issued on both Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 68) 19 and Plaintiff’s Motion to file an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 69). Depending on the 20 decision in those matters, Defendants may request additional time to respond. 21 Defendants now propose the following deadlines: 22 Dispositive motion deadline: 23 30 days after a decision by the Court on the pending Motion to Dismiss and 24 Motion to Amend 25 Joint pretrial order (if no dispositive motions filed): 26 30 days after the Dispositive Motion deadline. 27 28 If the Court prefers more concrete deadlines, Defendants propose in the alternative a set 90 day extension, making the deadlines: Page 5 of 7 Case 2:17-cv-02304-RFB-BNW Document 83 Filed 08/26/20 Page 6 of 7 1 Dispositive motion deadline: 2 Joint pretrial order (if no dispositive motions filed): December 27, 2020 3 VI. November 25, 2020 CONCLUSION 4 There are important procedural issues still pending before the court which may 5 affect any decision on any summary judgment matter. As such, Defendants are hereby 6 respectfully requesting an extension in which to respond to Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for 7 Summary Judgment. 8 DATED this 26th day of August, 2020. 9 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 10 11 By: /s/ Matthew P. Feeley MATTHEW P. FEELEY (Bar. No. 13336) Deputy Attorney General 12 13 Attorneys for Defendants Regina Barrett, Christopher Harris, Julio Mesa, and Timothy Knatz 14 15 16 17 The motion is granted as unopposed. See LR 7-2(d). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED 19 20 21 22 23 DATED: 5:07 pm, September 14, 2020 _________________________________ BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 Page 6 of 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
