Barren v. Roger et al

Filing 29

ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel 25 is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 4/11/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11
12
13
14
15
16

GREGORY D. BARREN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DAVID ROGER, District Attorney; OFFICER )
T. ROBINSON, P# 7466; OFFICER R. KENT, )
P# 6179; OFFICER D. SHANE, P# 6727,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No.: 2:11-cv-00650-RLH-CWH
ORDER
(Motion to Compel–#25)

17
18
19

Before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory D. Barren’s Motion to Compel to Answer or
In the Alternative, A Ruling on the Merits (#25, filed Apr. 4, 2012).

20

This is a § 1983 claim filed against various law enforcement officers. The Court

21

dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim on January 19, 2012. (#19). Plaintiff

22

subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration (#21), to which the Officers responded (#22), and

23

Plaintiff replied (#23). The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (#24). Plaintiff

24

has now filed a Motion to Compel asking the Court to either (1) compel the officers to file a sur-

25

reply to his Motion for Reconsideration or (2) issue an order on the merits of his Motion for

26

Reconsideration without the requested sur-reply. Plaintiff raises no new evidence, facts, or

AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

1

intervening change in the law in his Motion to Compel. Therefore, because the Court has already

2

issued an Order (#24) on the merits of his Motion for Reconsideration, this Motion to Compel is

3

moot.

4

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (#25) is DENIED as

6
7

MOOT.
Dated: April 11, 2012.

8
9

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

2