Mendoza v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's motion to strike and granting 53 the plaintiff's motion to authorize discovery to the extent discovery is allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA RAMON MENDOZA, Plaintiff, 8:13CV65 vs. ORDER JUSTIN OSTERBERG, et al., Defendants. This matter is before the court on the motion to strike (Filing No. 51) filed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE seeks to be removed as a party or have the plaintiff’s amended complaint (Filing No. 46) stricken from the record because, although the plaintiff received the court’s permission to file the amended complaint, it is not identical to the proposed pleading. The plaintiff filed a response brief coupled with a motion to authorize discovery (Filing No. 53). The plaintiff opposes ICE’s motion arguing the amended complaint is consistent with the court’s order (Filing No. 44) and, in any event, removes ICE as a defendant. ICE was terminated as a party to this action when the amended complaint was filed on September 18, 2013. See Filing No. 46. Accordingly, ICE improvidently filed the September 30, 2013, motion and such motion is denied. IT IS ORDERED: 1. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s motion to strike (Filing No. 51) is denied. 2. The plaintiff’s motion to authorize discovery (Filing No. 53) is granted to the extent discovery is allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Dated this 15th day of October, 2013. BY THE COURT: s/ Thomas D. Thalken United States Magistrate Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?