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)

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