Saintal v. Foster et al

Filing 63

ORDER Granting 61 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification. The Clerk shall file Plaintiffs Supplemental Complaint 50 as her Second Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff the proper complaint and in form a pauperis forms to enable her to file a separate action.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have 14 days from the entry of this order to respond to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/15/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

PRISCELLA R. SAINTAL,

Case No. 2:11-cv-00445-MMD-PAL
Plaintiff,

10
v.

ORDER
(Plf.’s Motion for Clarification – dkt. no. 61)

11
SHERYL FOSTER, et. al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14
15

On November 5, 2012, Plaintiff Priscella R. Saintal filed a letter with this Court

16

seeking clarification on a few issues relating to the Court’s October 17, 2012, Order.

17

(See dkt. no. 61.) Ordinarily, a document requesting a court order must be styled as a

18

motion, not as a letter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. In light of the lengthy Order and the

19

potential confusion it might raise, the Court construes Saintal’s letter as a Motion for

20

Clarification. Saintal’s Motion is granted, and the Court clarifies its October 17 Order as

21

follows:

22

First, this case remains open, and the operative complaint is the Supplemental

23

Complaint filed as Docket Number 50.

While ordinarily the granting of a summary

24

judgment motion on all claims in favor of a defendant would close a case, this case

25

remained open after the October 17 Order because Saintal had previously filed her

26

Supplemental Complaint.

27

proceedings, the Court declined to close the case outright, and Saintal’s claims

28

articulated in the Supplemental Complaint are now properly the subject of this case.

In order to streamline the litigation and avoid duplicative

1

Second, Saintal must proceed separately with her unrelated equal protection

2

claims. The Court’s October 17 Order describes how her equal protection claims are

3

sufficiently distinct from the remaining claims in the Supplemental Complaint;

4

consequently, these claims must be pursued separately in a new action. Saintal should

5

separately file with the Clerk a new Complaint and, if necessary, an Application to

6

Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

7
8

Lastly, the Clerk of the Court shall provide Saintal the proper forms for her to
pursue her separate action.

9

Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion for

10

Clarification (dkt. no. 61) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file Plaintiff’s Supplemental

11

Complaint (dkt. no. 50) as her Second Amended Complaint.

12
13
14
15
16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff the proper
complaint and in forma pauperis forms to enable her to file a separate action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have fourteen (14) days from
the entry of this order to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 15th day of November 2012.

18
19
20

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2