Klucka v. Ostrovsky et al

Filing 12

ORDER Denying 11 Motion of Inquiry. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/7/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

DAVID KLUCKA,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:15-CV-1062 JCM (VCF)
ORDER

v.
S. OSTROVSKY, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff David Klucka’s motion of inquiry. (Doc. #
11).

15

On June 25, 2015, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and

16

recommendation in full. (Doc. # 7). The court ordered plaintiff’s complaint (doc. # 3-1) be

17

dismissed without prejudice and granted plaintiff fourteen days from the entry of the court’s order

18

to file an amended complaint.

19

Plaintiff’s instant motion for inquiry does not ask for relief. Plaintiff merely asks for

20

clarification from the court regarding the status of his case. Plaintiff states that he entered a

21

“stipulation for extension of time to file motions or objections,” and asks for the court to tell him

22

the correct filing date for his complaint. (Doc. # 11).

23

The court notes for plaintiff that he moved this court for leave to extend his time to object

24

to the report and recommendation. (Doc. # 8). Plaintiff did not file a stipulation, as he asserts,

25

because a stipulation requires agreement between plaintiff and the opposing party. The court

26

denied plaintiff’s motion because the court had already ruled upon the report and recommendation.

27

Plaintiff has been previously directed by Magistrate Judge Ferenbach and this court to

28

amend his complaint and provide the court with additional facts in support of his claims. See Cato

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a claim for relief under section 1983,

2

plaintiff must provide facts that show (1) defendants acted under color of state law and (2) deprived

3

plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal laws. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d

4

1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff is advised that, if he does not file an amended complaint in

5

compliance with the court’s June 25, 2015, order, his complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.

6

(Doc. # 7).

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff David Klucka’s

9
10
11
12

motion of inquiry (doc. # 11) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED July 7, 2015.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-