Goldsmith v. State of Nevada, ex rel et al
Filing
11
ORDER that pursuant to the Court's 9 Screening Order this action shall proceed against Defendants Nash and Smith for failure to protect (Count I) only. This action is STAYED for 90 days to allow Plaintiff and Defendant(s) an opportunity to settle their dispute. The Clerk of the Court shall electronically serve a copy of this order, a copy of the 9 screening order and a copy of Plaintiff's 10 complaint on the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, attenti on Kat Howe. The Attorney General's Office shall advise the Court Within 21 days of the date of the entry of this order whether it will enter a limited notice of appearance on behalf of Defendants for the purpose of settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/11/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )
13
I.
7
8
9
10
11
CHARLES GOLDSMITH,
2:16-cv-00815-GMN-NJK
ORDER
DISCUSSION
14
On November 27, 2016, the Court issued a screening order permitting Count I to
15
proceed and dismissing Count II with leave to amend. (ECF No. 9 at 7). The Court granted
16
Plaintiff 30 days from the date of that order to file an amended complaint curing the
17
deficiencies of Count II. (Id.). The Court specifically stated that if Plaintiff chose not to file an
18
amended complaint, the action would proceed against Defendants Nash and Smith for failure
19
to protect (Count I) only. (Id. at 8). Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Pursuant to
20
the screening order, this action shall proceed against Defendants Nash and Smith for failure
21
to protect (Count I) only. Plaintiff paid the full filing fee for this case. (ECF No. 5).
22
II.
CONCLUSION
23
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court’s screening
24
order (ECF No. 9), this action shall proceed against Defendants Nash and Smith for failure to
25
protect (Count I) only.
26
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that given the nature of the claim(s) that the Court has
27
permitted to proceed, this action is STAYED for ninety (90) days to allow Plaintiff and
28
Defendant(s) an opportunity to settle their dispute before an answer is filed or the discovery
1
process begins. During this ninety-day stay period, no other pleadings or papers shall be filed
2
in this case, and the parties shall not engage in any discovery. The Court will refer this case
3
to the Court’s Inmate Early Mediation Program, and the Court will enter a subsequent order.
4
Regardless, on or before ninety (90) days from the date this order is entered, the Office of the
5
Attorney General shall file the report form attached to this order regarding the results of the
6
90-day stay, even if a stipulation for dismissal is entered prior to the end of the 90-day stay.
7
If the parties proceed with this action, the Court will then issue an order setting a date for
8
Defendants to file an answer or other response. Following the filing of an answer, the Court
9
will issue a scheduling order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “settlement” may or may not include payment of
11
money damages. It also may or may not include an agreement to resolve Plaintiff’s issues
12
differently. A compromise agreement is one in which neither party is completely satisfied with
13
the result, but both have given something up and both have obtained something in return.
14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any party seeks to have this case excluded from the
15
inmate mediation program, that party shall file a “motion to exclude case from mediation” on
16
or before twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order. The responding party shall have
17
seven (7) days to file a response. No reply shall be filed. Thereafter, the Court will issue an
18
order, set the matter for hearing, or both.
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall electronically SERVE a
20
copy of this order, a copy of the screening order (ECF No. 9) and a copy of Plaintiff’s
21
complaint (ECF No. 10) on the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, attention
22
Kat Howe.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Attorney General’s Office shall advise the Court
2
within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the entry of this order whether it will enter a limited
3
notice of appearance on behalf of Defendants for the purpose of settlement. No defenses or
4
objections, including lack of service, shall be waived as a result of the filing of the limited notice
5
of appearance.
6
7
DATED: This 11th day of January, 2017.
8
9
10
_________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
CHARLES GOLDSMITH,
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13
STATE OF NEVADA et al.,
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:16-cv-00815-GMN-NJK
REPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
RE: RESULTS OF 90-DAY STAY
15
Defendants.
___________________________________
16
NOTE: ONLY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL FILE THIS FORM. THE
17
INMATE PLAINTIFF SHALL NOT FILE THIS FORM.
18
19
On ________________ [the date of the issuance of the screening order], the Court
20
issued its screening order stating that it had conducted its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
21
1915A, and that certain specified claims in this case would proceed. The Court ordered the
22
Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada to file a report ninety (90) days after the
23
date of the entry of the Court’s screening order to indicate the status of the case at the end
24
of the 90-day stay. By filing this form, the Office of the Attorney General hereby complies.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
REPORT FORM
[Identify which of the following two situations (identified in bold type) describes the case, and
follow the instructions corresponding to the proper statement.]
Situation One: Mediated Case: The case was assigned to mediation by a courtappointed mediator during the 90-day stay. [If this statement is accurate, check ONE of
the six statements below and fill in any additional information as required, then proceed to the
signature block.]
____ A mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held on
_______________ [enter date], and as of this date, the parties have reached a
settlement (even if paperwork to memorialize the settlement remains to be
completed). (If this box is checked, the parties are on notice that they must
SEPARATELY file either a contemporaneous stipulation of dismissal or a motion
requesting that the Court continue the stay in the case until a specified date
upon which they will file a stipulation of dismissal.)
____ A mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held on
________________ [enter date], and as of this date, the parties have not
reached a settlement. The Office of the Attorney General therefore informs the
Court of its intent to proceed with this action.
____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the 90day stay, but the parties have nevertheless settled the case. (If this box is
checked, the parties are on notice that they must SEPARATELY file a
contemporaneous stipulation of dismissal or a motion requesting that the Court
continue the stay in this case until a specified date upon which they will file a
stipulation of dismissal.)
____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the 90day stay, but one is currently scheduled for ________________ [enter date].
____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the 90day stay, and as of this date, no date certain has been scheduled for such a
session.
____ None of the above five statements describes the status of this case.
Contemporaneously with the filing of this report, the Office of the Attorney
General of the State of Nevada is filing a separate document detailing the status
of this case.
*****
Situation Two: Informal Settlement Discussions Case: The case was NOT assigned to
mediation with a court-appointed mediator during the 90-day stay; rather, the parties
were encouraged to engage in informal settlement negotiations. [If this statement is
accurate, check ONE of the four statements below and fill in any additional information as
required, then proceed to the signature block.]
____ The parties engaged in settlement discussions and as of this date, the parties
have reached a settlement (even if the paperwork to memorialize the settlement
remains to be completed). (If this box is checked, the parties are on notice that
they must SEPARATELY file either a contemporaneous stipulation of dismissal
or a motion requesting that the Court continue the stay in this case until a
specified date upon which they will file a stipulation of dismissal.)
28
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
____ The parties engaged in settlement discussions and as of this date, the parties
have not reached a settlement. The Office of the Attorney General therefore
informs the Court of its intent to proceed with this action.
____ The parties have not engaged in settlement discussions and as of this date, the
parties have not reached a settlement. The Office of the Attorney General
therefore informs the Court of its intent to proceed with this action.
____ None of the above three statements fully describes the status of this case.
Contemporaneously with the filing of this report, the Office of the Attorney
General of the State of Nevada is filing a separate document detailing the status
of this case.
Submitted this _______ day of __________________, ______ by:
Attorney Name: ________________________
Print
Address:
_____________________________
Signature
________________________________
Phone:
________________________
________________________________
Email:
________________________
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?