Connors v. Nevada Energy

Filing 10

ORDER Denying 8 and 9 Motions for Injunctive Relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 9/26/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
FREDRICK CONNORS,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NEVADA ENERGY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01478-GMN-CWH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (#8), field
September 19, 2012 and Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (#9), filed September 24, 2012.
Both of Plaintiff’s motions consist of a single sentence: “I am filing for [i]njunctive

15

[r]elief.” While courts construe pro se pleadings liberally, the Ninth Circuit has held that “[p]ro

16

se must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” E.g., King v. Atiyeh, 814

17

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, “[t]he failure of a moving

18

party to file points and authorities in support of the motion shall constitute a consent to the denial

19

of the motion.” See LR 7-2(d). Plaintiff has not provided any support or context for the motions

20

currently under consideration, and the Court cannot, without more, adequately address the

21

motions. Accordingly,

22
23
24

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (#8) and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (#9) are denied.
DATED this 26th day of September, 2012.

25
26
27
28

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