Villarreal v. USA

Filing 38

ORDER Denying 36 Motion for status hearing. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/10/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

SALOMON JUAN MARCOS VILLARREAL, )
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

Case No. 2:11-cv-01594-JCM-GWF

ORDER

15
16

Presently before the court is the government’s motion for a status conference to ascertain

17

the status of the government’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #36). Plaintiff Salomon

18

Juan Marcos Villareal has not yet filed an opposition.

19

This case was originally filed in the District of Colorado on April 14, 2011. On July 22,

20

2011, the government filed a motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment. Doc. #31. The

21

magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the motion be granted on jurisdiction

22

grounds and the case transferred to the District of Nevada.

23

On September 30, 2011, The district judge affirmed the report and recommendation in

24

part, and rejected it in part, finding that the case should be transferred to the District of Nevada,

25

but also denying the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment as moot. The matter was

26

thereafter transferred to the District of Nevada. Now, nearly a year later, the government has

27

petitioned this court for a status hearing to determine why the court has not adjudicated its

28

motion for summary judgment.

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Apparently, the government believes that the Colorado court’s denial of the motion

2

resolved the dismissal portion of the motion, while leaving the summary judgment arguments

3

pending. The government is misinformed.

4

While the Colorado court may not have reached the merits of the dismissal/summary

5

judgment motion, its order denying the motion as moot terminated the motion without prejudice.

6

Accordingly, this court’s docket reports have never indicated that this case contained a ripe

7

motion for the court’s review.

8
9

The parties’ failure to refile the motion, or seek reconsideration of the order denying the
motion as moot, has left the docket with no motion for summary judgment pending. It is

10

improper for this court to rule on terminated motions. Moreover, in light of additional

11

proceedings in parallel cases that remained in Colorado, see, e.g., docket #1:11-cv-01000, the

12

court cannot be sure that the now year-old motion contains the most relevant legal discussion or

13

analysis.

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion for status

16
17

hearing (doc. #36) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the government file a motion for summary judgment,

18

or move for reconsideration of the order denying the previous motion for summary judgment, as

19

counsel sees fit.

20

DATED this 10TH day of August, 2012.

21
22
23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-2-