Hamer v. State of Nevada Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation Employment and Training
Filing
38
ORDER that 27 Motion to Order the Issuance of Complaint and Summons, 29 Motion to Issue Complaint and Summons and for Modification of the Number of Defendants, and 33 Motion to Issue and Serve Summonses are denied. FURTHER ORDERED that 36 Motion to Update Current Status of Summons and Complaint is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/10/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
CLARK HAMER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA BUREAU OF
)
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
)
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
15
Case No. 2:15-cv-01036-GMN-GWF
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Order the Issuance of Complaint and
16
Summons (ECF No. 27), filed on January 30, 2017, Motion to Issue Complaint and Summons and
17
for Modification of the Number of Defendants (ECF No. 29), filed on April 7, 2017, and Motion to
18
Issue and Serve Summonses (ECF No. 33), filed on June 9, 2017. Also before the Court is
19
Plaintiff’s Motion to Update Current Status of Summons and Complaint (ECF No. 36), filed on
20
June 23, 2017.
21
On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed his “third” amended Complaint1. ECF No. 19. On
22
April 7, 2017, Plaintiff requested to modify the number of defendants and/or their capacities to be
23
charged but did not provide the names or entities of the defendants. See ECF No. 29. Plaintiff
24
listed twelve individuals in his third amended complaint and described them as employees of the
25
State of Nevada “that had a hand in directly depriving [him] of [his] privileges as a client and citizen
26
of the United States, while violating State and Federal regulations.” See Third Amended Complaint
27
28
1
Although it is his second amended complaint, Plaintiff titled it as his third amended complaint
and the Court will refer to it as the third amended complaint hereinafter.
1
(ECF No. 19), pg. 3. On May 24, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s third amended complaint,
2
recommended that Plaintiff’s discrimination claim against the Nevada Disability and Advocacy Law
3
Center (“NDALC”) be dismissed, and ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summons to Defendant
4
Nevada Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation (“NBVR”). On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff requested that
5
the Court order the Clerk of Court to issue summons to ten individuals as defendants.
6
Although Plaintiff identified individuals in his third amended complaint, they were not
7
named as individual defendants or parties to this matter and the Court did not authorize Plaintiff to
8
file an amended complaint against them. The Court, therefore, denies Plaintiff’s request to serve
9
summonses against the individual defendants listed in his third amended complaint without
10
prejudice to Plaintiff filing a motion to amend with an attached proposed amended complaint
11
according to the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada and the Federal Rules of Civil
12
Procedure. In his June 23, 2017 motion, Plaintiff appears to be updating the Court on the service of
13
his third amended complaint upon Defendant NBVR and does not request any specific form or
14
relief. Accordingly,
15
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Order the Issuance of Complaint and
16
Summons (ECF No. 27), Motion to Issue Complaint and Summons and for Modification of the
17
Number of Defendants (ECF No. 29), and Motion to Issue and Serve Summonses (ECF No. 33) are
18
denied.
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion to Update Current Status of Summons and
20
Complaint (ECF No. 36) is denied as moot.
21
DATED this 10th day of July, 2017.
22
23
24
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?