Santal v. Pesce et al

Filing 29

ORDER Denying 27 Motion to Amend the Complaint without prejudice. The Court will provide Plaintiff an additional opportunity to file the motion. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must file her proposed amended complaint on the Section 1983 form available from the Court; the Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk's Office to mail such a form to Plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any renewed motion for leave to amend must be filed by 3/10/17. See Order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/7/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 PRISCELLA SAINTAL, 10 Plaintiff(s), 11 vs. 12 MARIA PESCE, et al., 13 Defendant(s). 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:15-cv-02460-GMN-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 27) 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to amend the complaint. Docket No. 27. 16 Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 28. The pending motion is defective for several 17 reasons. First, the attached proposed amended complaint is incomplete and unsigned. See Docket No. 18 27-1 at 19 (ending page mid-sentence). Second, the caption for the proposed amended complaint does 19 not specifically identify each Defendant against whom Plaintiff wishes to proceed at this point. See id. 20 at 1. Third, the proposed amended complaint continues to assert claims against Defendants who have 21 been dismissed with prejudice, and also appears to seek to restate claims that have been dismissed with 22 prejudice. Compare, e.g., id. at 7 (alleging retaliation claim against Defendant Pesce) with Docket No. 23 3 at 5-6 (screening order dismissing with prejudice retaliation claim against Defendant Pesce). 24 In light of the above, the Court again DENIES the motion to amend the complaint without 25 prejudice. The Court will provide Plaintiff an additional opportunity to file the motion. Plaintiff is also 26 instructed as follows: 27 28 • Plaintiff must file her proposed amended complaint on the Section 1983 form available from the Court. See Local Special Rule 2-1 (“A civil-rights complaint filed by a person 1 who is not represented by counsel must be submitted on the form provided by this 2 court”). To that end, the Court also INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s Office to mail such a form 3 to Plaintiff. 4 • The proposed amended complaint must be complete and signed. 5 • The caption for the proposed amended complaint must identify by name each Defendant 6 7 against whom Plaintiff wishes to proceed. • The proposed amended complaint must omit those Defendants and those claims that 8 have been dismissed with prejudice. For Defendants and claims that were dismissed 9 with prejudice by Chief United States District Judge Gloria M. Navarro in the screening 10 order, it has already been determined that amendment would be futile. See Docket No. 11 3. Moreover, Plaintiff does not need to continue alleging such claims to preserve them 12 for appellate purposes. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). 13 Accordingly, such claims and parties must be omitted from any proposed amended 14 complaint. See id. (district courts are not required to expend resources parsing old claims 15 and reiterating prior rulings). 16 • 17 18 The motion for leave to amend must clearly identify the parties that Plaintiff seeks to add and the claims that she seeks to add. • Any renewed motion for leave to amend must be filed by March 10, 2017. If no motion 19 for leave to amend is filed by that date, the Court will proceed on the claims that have 20 survived the screening process and Defendants will be required to respond to the original 21 complaint by March 24, 2017. If a motion for leave to amend is filed, the deadline to file 22 an answer will be stayed until 14 days after the motion for leave to amend is decided. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED: February 7, 2017 25 26 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 2

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?