Sexton v. County of Clark Nevada (COCN) et al

Filing 7

ORDER that if Plaintiff chooses to file a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies of her second amended complaint, as outlined in the November 18, 2016 screening order, Plaintiff shall file the third amended complaint within thirty (30) da ys from the date of entry of this order. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send to Plaintiff the approved form for filing a § 1983 complaint, instructions for the same, and a copy of the November 18, 2016 screening order (ECF No . 5). FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses not to file a third amended complaint curing the stated deficiencies of the second amended complaint (ECF No. 3), this action shall proceed on the second amended complaints Count II (Chavez, Robinson, Adams, and Niswonger), Counts III and IV (Adams, Gregg, Niswonger, M. Smith, Acevedo, Coker, Hogan, Delacruz, Goins, Macsucel, Cadet, C. Smith, Lombardo, and Williamson), Count V (Doe Defendants), Count VI (County of Clark Nevada, City of Las Vegas, LVMPD, Lombardo, and Yannis), and Count VII (Adams, Gregg, Niswonger, M. Smith, Acevedo, Coker, Hogan, Delacruz, Goins, Macsucel, Cadet, C. Smith, Lombardo, Williamson, and Moers) only. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 12/28/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

AMANDA LEA SEXTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________

2:16-cv-02289-RFB-VCF
ORDER

13
I.

DISCUSSION

14
On November 21, 2016, the clerk’s office docketed this Court’s November 18, 2016
15

screening order on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.1 (ECF No. 5). On November 23,

16
2016, the clerk’s office docketed Plaintiff’s “first” amended complaint dated November 16,
17
2016. (ECF No. 6). Based on the dates of the two documents, it appears that Plaintiff
18
submitted her “first” amended complaint prior to receiving this Court’s screening order.
19
The Court will not screen Plaintiff’s “first” amended complaint. (ECF No. 6). Instead,
20
if Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint, she must comply with this Court’s November
21
18, 2016 screening order and file a “third” amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the
22
date of this order. If Plaintiff chooses not to file a third amended complaint, this action will
23
proceed on the second amended complaint (ECF No. 3) on Count II (Chavez, Robinson,
24
Adams, and Niswonger), Counts III and IV (Adams, Gregg, Niswonger, M. Smith, Acevedo,
25
Coker, Hogan, Delacruz, Goins, Macsucel, Cadet, C. Smith, Lombardo, and Williamson),
26
Count V (Doe Defendants), Count VI (County of Clark Nevada, City of Las Vegas, LVMPD,
27
28
1

This is a severed case. The Court used the second amended complaint from the
original case as the operative complaint in this case. (See ECF No. 1).

1

Lombardo, and Yannis), and Count VII (Adams, Gregg, Niswonger, M. Smith, Acevedo, Coker,

2

Hogan, Delacruz, Goins, Macsucel, Cadet, C. Smith, Lombardo, Williamson, and Moers) only.

3

II.

CONCLUSION

4

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to file a third

5

amended complaint curing the deficiencies of her second amended complaint, as outlined in

6

the November 18, 2016 screening order, Plaintiff shall file the third amended complaint within

7

thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send to Plaintiff the

9

approved form for filing a § 1983 complaint, instructions for the same, and a copy of the

10

November 18, 2016 screening order (ECF No. 5). If Plaintiff chooses to file a third amended

11

complaint, she must use the approved form and she shall write the words “Third Amended”

12

above the words “Civil Rights Complaint” in the caption.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses not to file a third amended

14

complaint curing the stated deficiencies of the second amended complaint (ECF No. 3), this

15

action shall proceed on the second amended complaint’s Count II (Chavez, Robinson, Adams,

16

and Niswonger), Counts III and IV (Adams, Gregg, Niswonger, M. Smith, Acevedo, Coker,

17

Hogan, Delacruz, Goins, Macsucel, Cadet, C. Smith, Lombardo, and Williamson), Count V

18

(Doe Defendants), Count VI (County of Clark Nevada, City of Las Vegas, LVMPD, Lombardo,

19

and Yannis), and Count VII (Adams, Gregg, Niswonger, M. Smith, Acevedo, Coker, Hogan,

20

Delacruz, Goins, Macsucel, Cadet, C. Smith, Lombardo, Williamson, and Moers) only.

21
22

28th
DATED: This _____ day of December, 2016.

23
24

_________________________________
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2