Canterbury v. Clark County Detention Center et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 9 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; ORDER denying 10 Motion for Appointment of Counsel ; ORDER denying 11 Motion; ORDER denying 13 Motion for Appointment of Counsel ; ORDER denying 14 Motion; ORDER denying 16 Motion; ORDER denying 17 Motion; ORDER denying 18 Motion; ORDER denying 19 Motion. It is further ordered that Plaintiff shall file no more documents in this case. If he chooses to file any further documents, they should be filed in Case 2:17-cv-00211-MMDNJK. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/16/2018.; Case dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

RICHARD LEE CANTERBURY,

5
6
7
8

Case No. 2:17-cv-00212-APG-NJK
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Southern Detention Center

11

(“NSDC”), has submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No.

12

1-1. The complaint in this case is identical to the complaint filed on the same day in Case

13

2:17-cv-00211-MMD-NJK.1 Compare ECF No. 1-1, 2:17-cv-00212-APG-NJK with ECF

14

No. 1-1, 2:17-cv-00211-MMD-NJK. Thus, it appears this case was opened in error.

15

Plaintiff himself seems confused that there are two separate cases numbers for the same

16

case. See ECF No. 20. The complaint in this case has not been screened, but the

17

complaint in 2:17-cv-00211-MMD-NJK has been screened. Therefore, I will dismiss the

18

complaint in this case without prejudice, and close the case. From this point forward,

19

Plaintiff should file documents only in Case 2:17-cv-00211-MMD-NJK.

20

I further deny as moot the following motions: Plaintiff’s application for leave to

21

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9), motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10),

22

motion for subpoena (ECF No. 10), amended motion for appointment of counsel (ECF

23

No. 13), motion that documents be submitted in size 15 font (ECF No. 14), motion for trial

24

(ECF No. 16), motions for ruling (ECF Nos. 17, 18), and motion for clarification (ECF No.

25

19). Plaintiff may refile any appropriate motion in Case 2:17-cv-00211-MMD-NJK.

26
27
28

1

While the complaints are identical, the complaint in this case has additional
exhibits that are not attached to the complaint in Case 2:17-cv-00211-MMD-NJK.

1
2
3
4

It is ordered that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed, without prejudice,
without leave to amend.
It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9)
is denied as moot.

5
6

It is further ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10) is
denied as moot.

7

It is further ordered that the motion for subpoena (ECF No. 11) is denied as moot.

8
9

It is further ordered that the amended motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No.
13) is denied as moot.

10
11

It is further ordered that the motion that documents be submitted in size 15 font
(ECF No. 14) is denied as moot.

12

It is further ordered that the motion for trial (ECF No. 16) is denied as moot

13
14

It is further ordered that the motions for ruling (ECF Nos. 17, 18) are denied as
moot.

15

It is further ordered that the motion for clarification (ECF No. 19) is denied as moot.

16
17
18
19
20
21

It is further ordered that Plaintiff shall file no more documents in this case. If he
chooses to file any further documents, they should be filed in Case 2:17-cv-00211-MMDNJK.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment
accordingly.
DATED THIS 16th day of January, 2018.

22
23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
-2-