Williams v. Gold Coast Hotel and Casino et al

Filing 67

ORDER Granting 66 Motion for Amendment of Document Names. The Clerk of Court is instructed to identify Plaintiffs motions 37 and 38 as replies to the appropriate pending motions. Denying as moot 48 and 54 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/21/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
SOFIA A. WILLIAMS,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GOLD COAST HOTEL AND CASINO, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-02112-KJD-CWH
ORDER

16
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Amendment of Document Names
17
(#66), filed May 16, 2012.
18
Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se and is not familiar with filing practices. She
19
requests that the Court amend the caption of several filings so that they are properly identified on the
20
docket. The Court has reviewed the docket and agrees that, in the interest of clarity, the following
21
filings need to be addressed:
22
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (#38), filed March 19, 2012, is a reply to Defendants’
23
responses to Plaintiff’s motion (#16), and
24
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (#37), filed March 19, 2012, is a reply to Defendant United
25
States Motion to Dismiss (#20).
26
The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate Plaintiff’s motions (#37) and (#38) and identify each as a
27
reply to the appropriate pending motions. As a result of this action, Defendants’ Motion to Strike
28
(#48), filed March 29, 2012, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (#54), filed April 13, 2012, are moot.

1

Additionally, Plaintiff’s incorrectly captioned Motion to Dismiss (#47) is a surreply. Normally,

2

a litigant must request leave to file a surreply. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se the

3

Court must construe her pleadings liberally. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699

4

(9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the Court will not strike improper surreply but will afford it the weight it

5

deserves, if any, in consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#12).

6

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Amendment of Document Names

8

(#66) is granted. The Clerk of Court is instructed to identify Plaintiff’s motions (#37) and (#38) as

9

replies to the appropriate pending motions.

10
11
12
13
14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike (#48) and Plaintiff’s Motion
to Dismiss (#54) are denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court identify Plaintiff’s incorrectly captioned
Motion to Dismiss (#47) as a surreply to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#12).
Dated this 21st day of May, 2012.

15
16
17

___________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2