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)

Download PDF
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?