Ross v. Krueger et al

Filing 118

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 112 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. The parties proposed Stipulation 111 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/24/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

JESSE ARON ROSS,
Plaintiff,

5

vs.
6
7
8

AMY KRUEGER, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00355-GMN-VCF
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE FERENBACH

9
10
11
12

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 112) of
the Honorable Cam Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, entered June 22, 2015.
This action involves various constitutional rights violations allegedly suffered by Plaintiff

13

Jesse Aron Ross, proceeding pro se, while he was an inmate at Nye County Detention Center.

14

On March 31, 2015, this Court entered an Order (ECF No. 103) granting in part and denying in

15

part the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 82) filed by Defendants. In pertinent part, the

16

Order denied Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Monell claims under a

17

qualified immunity defense. Defendants subsequently appealed the denial of their qualified

18

immunity defense to the Ninth Circuit. (Not. of Appeal, ECF No. 106). Following their appeal,

19

Defendants filed a Motion to Stay (ECF No. 109) the remainder of the case pending resolution of

20

their appeal, and both parties filed a Stipulation to Consolidate (ECF No. 111) this action with

21

another similar action proceeding in state court. In the pending Report and Recommendation,

22

Judge Ferenbach granted the Motion to Stay but recommended that this Court deny the

23

stipulation to consolidate because the state court action has not been removed to federal court.

24

Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, in which his sole

25

argument is that “[t]he stipulation is the very vehicle to Remove the State Action.” (Obj. at 3,

1

ECF No. 113). Plaintiff, however, is incorrect. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 governs the procedure for the

2

removal of civil state court actions to federal court and requires the removing party to file “a

3

notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

4

containing a short plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process,

5

pleadings, and orders served . . . in such action.” The parties’ proposed stipulation fails to satisfy

6

these requirements. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the recommendation of Judge Ferenbach

7

that the stipulation should be denied.

8
9
10
11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 112)
is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. The parties proposed Stipulation (ECF No. 111) is
DENIED.
DATED this 24th day of September, 2015.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court