Ross v. Sandoval et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JESSE ARON ROSS,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02386-APG-GWF
BRIAN SANDOVAL et al.,
On December 4, 2017, this Court entered a screening order which granted Plaintiff
thirty (30) days to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 9 at 24). The screening
order stated that, if Plaintiff chose to file a second amended complaint, the Court would
screen the second amended complaint in a separate screening order. (Id. at 25). The
screening order noted that the screening process would take several months. (Id.) The
screening order stated that, if Plaintiff chose not to file a second amended complaint, the
action would immediately proceed on Counts V and VIII (conditions of confinement
violations) against Owens, Williams, Russell, and Byrne; Count VI (state law claim)
against Owens, Williams, Russell, and Byrne; Count VII (state law claim) against
Defendants Owens, Williams, Russell, and Byrne; Count XV (free exercise, RLUIPA, and
equal protection violations) against Caldrin and Williams; and Count XVII (deliberate
indifference to serious dental needs) against Magapah, Torress, Russell, Jane Doe #1,
and John Doe #1-A (when Plaintiff learned their identities). (Id.)
On December 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to defer filing an amended complaint
until after the conclusion of mediation. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff also filed a motion for
reconsideration on the screening order dismissing Counts XIII and XIV of the first
amended complaint. (ECF No. 16). On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. (ECF No. 19).
The Court now denies the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 16) as moot. In
light of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the first amended complaint is no longer
operative. The Court will screen the claims in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and
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
mediation (ECF No. 15) in light of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion to defer filing an amended
complaint (ECF No. 15) is denied.
It is further ordered that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 16) is denied as
Dated: January 11, 2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?