Mehudar v. Acklin, et al

Filing 66

ORDER. Plaintiff is advised that the court will not take further action with respect to documents 64 and 65 unless they are re-filed as motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/7/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 7 8 9 10 HEATHER MEHUDAR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) GENEVIE ACKLIN, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:16-cv-00304-RFB-CWH ORDER 11 12 Presently before the court is pro se Plaintiff Heather Mehudar’s Notice: Uncontested Jurat 13 Affidavits; Proof of Delivery; Writ of Habeas Corpus Warning; Jurat Affidavit and Certificate of 14 Service (ECF No. 64), filed on January 30, 2017. Also before the court is Plaintiff’s Court Order: 15 Arrest Warrants; Exhibits; Jurat Affidavit; and Certificate of Service (ECF No. 65), filed on 16 February 6, 2017. 17 These filings—which are styled as notices rather than motions—are a compendium of 18 various documents including affidavits, orders and arrest warrants issued by the “Mehudar Court,” 19 copies of income tax returns, and various exhibits including written correspondence, certified mail 20 tracking information, and a birth certificate. The court notes that some of these documents appear 21 to be seeking action by the court. As the court previously advised Plaintiff in its order dated 22 October 17, 2016: 23 24 25 26 27 28 When a document is electronically filed using the “notice” event, it does not trigger the electronic filing system to mark the document as an action item for the court. If Plaintiff seeks relief from the court, she is advised to style her requests for relief as motions, which will be automatically marked by the electronic filing system as action items. When a request is styled as a motion, it also triggers the opposing party’s response deadline and the movant’s reply deadline, thereby giving all parties the opportunity to be heard before the court decides the motion. Although the court will liberally construe Plaintiff’s filings given that she is not represented by an attorney, Plaintiff nevertheless is required to follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Given that Plaintiff is registered as an electronic filer, she must file all documents electronically as set forth in the court’s local rules. See LR IC 2-1(a). 1 (Order (ECF No. 40) at 2-3.) 2 Given that she has not styled her requests for relief as motions, Plaintiff is advised that the 3 court will not take further action with respect to the documents filed at ECF Nos. 64-65 unless they 4 are re-filed as motions. Plaintiff further is advised that any additional failures to comply with the 5 court’s orders and local rules of practice may subject her to sanctions under Local Rule IA 11-8(c)- 6 (d). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 DATED: February 7, 2017 10 11 12 ______________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?