Strong v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
5
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 1 Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis without having to prepay the full filing fee is GRANTED. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for th e Nevada Department of Prisons. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SHALL ISSUE a summons for Defendant Sergeant Fry, AND DELIVER THE SAME, to the U.S. Marshal for service. The Clerk SHALL SEND to Plaintiff one (1) USM-285 forms. The Cl erk also SHALL SEND a copy of 4 the complaint and a copy of this order to the U.S. Marshal for service on Defendant(s). See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 1/23/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: USM - MR)
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
STIG STRONG,
2:17-cv-02860-APG-PAL
ORDER
DISCUSSION
14
On December 4, 2017, the Court issued a screening order dismissing some claims with
15
leave to amend, dismissing other claims without leave to amend, and permitting one claim to
16
proceed. (ECF No. 3 at 9). The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days from the date of that order to
17
file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies of the complaint. (Id. at 10). The Court
18
specifically stated that if Plaintiff chose not to file an amended complaint, the action would
19
proceed against Defendants Sergeant Fry and Doe deputies (when Plaintiff learns their
20
identities) for excessive force only. (Id.). Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.
21
Pursuant to the screening order, this action shall proceed against Defendants Sergeant Fry
22
and Doe deputies (when Plaintiff learns their identities) for excessive force only.
23
Additionally, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is before the Court.
24
(ECF No. 1). Based on the information regarding Plaintiff’s financial status, the Court finds
25
that Plaintiff is not able to pay an initial installment payment toward the full filing fee pursuant
26
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff will, however, be required to make monthly payments toward the
27
full $350.00 filing fee when he has funds available.
28
///
1
II.
CONCLUSION
2
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
3
forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) without having to prepay the full filing fee is GRANTED. Plaintiff
4
shall not be required to pay an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee shall still
5
be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. The
6
movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of
7
prepayment of fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. This order granting in forma
8
pauperis status shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government
9
expense.
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the
11
Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections shall pay to the Clerk
12
of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s deposits
13
to the account of Stig Strong, #1180512 (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until
14
the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order
15
to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Prisons, P.O. Box
16
7011, Carson City, NV 89702.
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, even if this action is dismissed, or is otherwise
18
unsuccessful, the full filing fee shall still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, as amended by
19
the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act.
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court’s screening order (ECF No. 3),
21
this action shall proceed against Defendants Sergeant Fry and Doe deputies (when Plaintiff
22
learns their identities) for excessive force only.
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SHALL ISSUE a summons for
24
Defendant Sergeant Fry, AND DELIVER THE SAME, to the U.S. Marshal for service. The
25
Clerk SHALL SEND to Plaintiff one (1) USM-285 forms. The Clerk also SHALL SEND a copy
26
of the complaint (ECF No. 4) and a copy of this order to the U.S. Marshal for service on
27
Defendant(s). Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days within which to furnish to the U.S. Marshal
28
the required USM-285 forms with relevant information as to each Defendant on each form.
2
1
Within twenty (20) days after receiving from the U.S. Marshal a copy of the USM-285 forms
2
showing whether service has been accomplished, Plaintiff must file a notice with the Court
3
identifying which Defendant(s) were served and which were not served, if any. If Plaintiff
4
wishes to have service again attempted on an unserved Defendant(s), then a motion must be
5
filed with the Court identifying the unserved Defendant(s) and specifying a more detailed name
6
and/or address for said Defendant(s), or whether some other manner of service should be
7
attempted.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that henceforth, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or,
9
if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon the attorney(s), a copy of every pleading,
10
motion or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with
11
the original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy
12
of the document was mailed to the Defendants or counsel for the Defendants. The Court may
13
disregard any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge which has not been filed
14
with the clerk, and any paper received by a district judge, magistrate judge or the clerk which
15
fails to include a certificate of service.
16
17
DATED: This 23rd day of January 2018.
18
19
_________________________________
United States Magistrate Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?