Sedano et al v. State Of Nevada et al

Filing 23

ORDER Granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; and Granting 13 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; and Denying 12 Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. Clerk shall correct the docket to reflect that plainti ff's counter motion for default judgment 17 is plaintiff's reply to documents 14 and 16. Clerk shall correct the docket to reflect that plaintiff's counter motion to dismiss 18 is plaintiff's opposition to document 9 and document 21 is defendant's reply thereto. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/6/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

HIRAM C. SEDANO, et al.,

9
10
11

2:11-CV-1144 JCM (PAL)

Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

12
Defendants.

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is defendants the State of Nevada, Attorney General Catherine

16

Cortez Masto, and Deputy Attorney General Kimberly Okezie's motion to dismiss for lack of subject

17

matter jurisdiction. (Doc. #9). Plaintiffs Hiram Sedano and Lidia Sedano have failed to file an

18

opposition.1

19
20

Also before the court is defendant Brian Snyder's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. (Doc. #13). Plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition.

21

Also before the court is plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against defendants. (Doc.

22

#12). Defendant Brian Snyder has responded (doc. #14) and defendants the State of Nevada,

23

Attorney General Cortez, and Deputy Attorney General Okezie have responded (doc. #16). Plaintiff

24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

As explained more fully above, the court is interpreting plainitff’s counter motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as an opposition to document 9.

1

did not file a reply.2

2

Plaintiffs have also filed a counter motion for default judgment (doc. #17) and a counter

3

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (doc. #18). The court believes plaintiffs,

4

who are proceeding pro se, intended the counter motion for default judgment to serve as a reply to

5

documents 14 and 16, and the counter motion to dismiss as a response to document 9. The court will

6

consider the counter motions accordingly.

7
8

The court finds that there is no federal question appearing on the face of the complaint.
Additionally, plaintiffs have failed to establish that diversity jurisdiction is proper.

9

Accordingly,

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that defendant State of

11

Nevada, Attorney General Cortez, and Deputy Attorney General Okezie's motion to dismiss for lack

12

of subject matter jurisdiction (doc. #9) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that defendant Brian Snyder's

14

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (doc. #13) be, and the same hereby is,

15

GRANTED.

16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that plaintiffs motion for
entry of default judgment (doc. #12) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the clerk of court correct

19

the docket to reflect that plaintiff's counter motion for default judgment (doc. #17) is plaintiff's reply

20

to documents 14 and 16.

21

...

22

...

23

...

24

...

25

...

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

2

As explained more fully above, the court is interpreting plaintiff’s counter motion for default
judgment as a reply to documents 14 and 16.
-2-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the clerk of court correct

2

the docket to reflect that plaintiff's counter motion to dismiss (doc. #18) is plaintiff's opposition to

3

document 9 and document 21 is defendants' reply thereto.

4

DATED September 6, 2011.

5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-