v. Wiideman et al

Filing 16

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's 14 Motion to Re-Instate Complaint Dismissed in Error is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 11/30/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

Download PDF
Wiideman v. McDaniel, et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On September 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of this action. (Docket #11.) In his motion, plaintiff stated that he had raised his claims in 3:09-cv-0650, another action he had pending before this court. Id. On October 8, 2010, this court granted plaintiff's motion and entered judgment in this case. (Docket #13.) On October 18, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to re-instate his complaint. (Docket #14.) Plaintiff provides no explanation or basis for his motion other than the assertion that his earlier motion to voluntarily dismiss this action was made in error. Id. The court finds this to be an insufficient basis to reverse its judgment. The court notes that 3:09-cv-650 was dismissed for failure to state a claim on September 23, 2010. Plaintiff may not now attempt to relitigate claims raised in that action. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is HEREBY DENIED. (Docket #14.) DATED this 30th day of November, 2010. vs. E. K. McDANIEL, et al., Defendants. RANDAL N. WIIDEMAN, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3: 09-cv-00704-LRH-VPC ORDER Dockets.Justia.com

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?