Ramos-Rodriguez v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al
Filing
14
ORDER reconsidering 10 Order. The Court will therefore review Plaintiff's amended complaint and will issue a separate screening order accordingly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
MANUEL RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ,
8
Plaintiff(s),
9
vs.
10
11
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
12
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:15-cv-01212-GMN-NJK
ORDER
13
14
On March 29, 2017, the Court issued an order directing that this action would proceed only
15
on Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendants Beck, Escartin,
16
Holloway, Laurenco, Rich, Porter, and Thomas because the Court believed that Plaintiff had not filed
17
an amended complaint. Docket No. 10. It has now come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff did
18
indeed file an amended complaint but, due to an administrative error, the Clerk’s Office initially
19
opened a separate case. Plaintiff’s amended complaint has now been properly docketed in this
20
action. Docket No. 13.
21
Accordingly, the Court hereby reconsiders its order at Docket No. 10 sua sponte. Cf. United
22
States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (courts have authority to reconsider non-final
23
orders sua sponte). The Court will therefore review Plaintiff’s amended complaint and will issue
24
a separate screening order accordingly.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
DATED: April 17, 2017.
27
28
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
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?