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