Collins v. Hendrix et al

Filing 103

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 91 defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs response be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 94 defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's motion fo r summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 100 plaintiff's motion to extend time be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 101 Defendants' motion to extend time be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 92 plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be, and the same here is, DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

LEROY COLLINS,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:15-CV-1696 JCM (CWH)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
PATRICK HENDRIX, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is defendants Romeo Aranas, Greg Cox, Patrick Hendricks, and

14

Dwight Nevens’ (collectively “defendants”) motion to strike plaintiff Leroy Collins response (ECF

15

No. 90) to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 84). (ECF No. 91). Plaintiff

16

Leroy Collins filed a response (ECF No. 95), to which defendants replied (ECF No. 98).

17

Also before the court is defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s motion for summary

18

judgment (ECF No. 92). (ECF No. 94). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 99), to which

19

defendants replied (ECF No. 102).

20

Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion to extend time to file a re-drafted motion for

21

summary judgment and a re-drafted response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF

22

No. 100).

23
24
25

Also before the court is defendants’ motion to extend time to file a response to plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 101).
Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

(ECF No. 92).

26

Defendants have not filed a response because the court has extended defendants’ filing deadline

27

to fourteen (14) days after the date of this order. (ECF No. 94).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Under Local Rule 7-3, “motions for summary judgment and responses to motions for

2

summary judgment are limited to 30 pages.” LR 7-3. Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 90) is fifty-

3

four (54) pages and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 92) is thirty-four (34)

4

pages. Because both documents exceed the page limit, the court will grant defendants’ motions to

5

strike. Accordingly, the court will also deny as moot defendants’ motion to extend time (ECF No.

6

101) to file a response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

7

As plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis, the court will exercise leniency and

8

grant plaintiff’s request for an additional thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file a

9

corrected response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff may also file a

10

corrected motion for summary judgment.

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendants’ motion to

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

strike plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 91) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 94) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to extend time (ECF No. 100) be, and
the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to extend time (ECF No. 101) be,
and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 92)
be, and the same here is, DENIED without prejudice.
DATED October 11, 2018.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-