McCarty v. Roos et al

Filing 151

ORDER re 150 Notice to the Court of Plaintiff's Intellectual Inability to Change 142 Response to 136 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, no later than 5/13/13, shall submit a response to 136 Motion to Dismiss that complies with the Local Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/30/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

ROBERT JOSEPH MCCARTY,

8
9
10

Plaintiff(s),
vs.
JOHN V. ROOS, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01538-JCM-NJK
ORDER REQUIRING FILING OF
AMENDED RESPONSE TO MOTION
TO DISMISS THAT COMPLIES
WITH THE LOCAL RULES

12
13

On April 23, 2013, the Court struck Plaintiff’s response to the pending motion to dismiss and

14

ordered that he file a new response in compliance with the Local Rules no later than May 6, 2013.

15

Docket No. 148. The Court has now received a notice that Plaintiff does not believe he is able to

16

limit his response to the page limit outlined in the Local Rules. See Docket No. 150. Pro se

17

litigants are required to follow the rules of this Court. See Carter v. C.I.R., 784 F.2d 1006, 1008

18

(9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff here has failed to show that an exception should be made to the page

19

limitation and formatting requirements of Local Rules 7-4 and 10-1. As such, the Court ORDERS

20

Plaintiff, no later than May 13, 2013, to submit a response to the motion to dismiss that complies

21

with the Local Rules, including that it be limited to no more than 30 pages of double-spaced text.

22

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a proper response to the motion to dismiss may be

23

considered by the district judge as Plaintiff consenting to the granting of the motion to dismiss. See

24

Local Rule 7-2(d).

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

DATED: April 30, 2013

27
28

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge