Misiewicz v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 34

ORDER Denying as unnecessary Defendants' 32 Motion to Screen the Amended Complaint and Denying 33 Motion to Extend Time to Answer. The Court will disregard the 30 Answer and will screen the Amended Complaint as promptly as its docket allows. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 6/3/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8

WILLIAM MISIEWICZ,

9
10

Plaintiff,

2:13-cv-01419-MMD-VCF

vs.

11

ORDER
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.

12
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion (#32) to screen the amended complaint and
motion (#33) to extend their time to answer both are DENIED as unnecessary. The Court
does not need, or want, prompting by motion to screen matters that it screens as a matter of
course. Nor do defendants need an extension of time to answer in this type of case prior to
an express directive that they do so. Counsel might consider in future instead filing a motion
to withdraw an answer as improvidently filed in the circumstance presented by their
inadvertent answer on May 14, 2014. The Court will disregard the answer and will screen the
amended complaint as promptly as its docket allows.
DATED: June 3, 2014

23
24
25
26
27
28

_________________________________
CAM FERENBACH
United States Magistrate Judge