Ross v. Sandoval et al

Filing 21

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 15 the motion to defer filing an amended complaint is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 16 the motion for reconsideration is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JESSE ARON ROSS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 2:17-cv-02386-APG-GWF
ORDER

v.
BRIAN SANDOVAL et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

I.

DISCUSSION

16

On December 4, 2017, this Court entered a screening order which granted Plaintiff

17

thirty (30) days to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 9 at 24). The screening

18

order stated that, if Plaintiff chose to file a second amended complaint, the Court would

19

screen the second amended complaint in a separate screening order. (Id. at 25). The

20

screening order noted that the screening process would take several months. (Id.) The

21

screening order stated that, if Plaintiff chose not to file a second amended complaint, the

22

action would immediately proceed on Counts V and VIII (conditions of confinement

23

violations) against Owens, Williams, Russell, and Byrne; Count VI (state law claim)

24

against Owens, Williams, Russell, and Byrne; Count VII (state law claim) against

25

Defendants Owens, Williams, Russell, and Byrne; Count XV (free exercise, RLUIPA, and

26

equal protection violations) against Caldrin and Williams; and Count XVII (deliberate

27

indifference to serious dental needs) against Magapah, Torress, Russell, Jane Doe #1,

28

and John Doe #1-A (when Plaintiff learned their identities). (Id.)

1

On December 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to defer filing an amended complaint

2

until after the conclusion of mediation. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff also filed a motion for

3

reconsideration on the screening order dismissing Counts XIII and XIV of the first

4

amended complaint. (ECF No. 16). On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second amended

5

complaint. (ECF No. 19).

6

The Court now denies the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 16) as moot. In

7

light of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the first amended complaint is no longer

8

operative. The Court will screen the claims in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and

9

issue a separate screening order. The screening process will take several months.
The Court also denies the motion to defer filing an amended complaint until after

10
11

mediation (ECF No. 15) in light of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.

12

II.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion to defer filing an amended

13
14

complaint (ECF No. 15) is denied.
It is further ordered that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 16) is denied as

15
16
17

CONCLUSION

moot.
Dated: January 11, 2018.

18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-