Desilva v. Lore
Filing
13
ORDER - This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 12/18/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JK)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
9
DAVID KEITH DESILVA,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
PAUL LORE,
13
Defendant.
3:12-cv-0318-LRH-WGC
ORDER
14
15
Plaintiff David Keith DeSilva (“DeSilva”) initiated the underlying action for a civil rights
16
violation and for injunctive relief against defendant Paul Lore (“Lore”) in state court alleging that
17
Lore attacked him at the Reno Veteran’s Administration medical facility. In response, Lore
18
removed this action to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the court lacked
19
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the derivative jurisdiction doctrine. See Doc. #5.
20
On October 30, 2012, the court denied the motion to dismiss finding that “dismissal would
21
be a waste of judicial time and resources because this action is now before a court that can hear the
22
merits of the complaint.” Doc. #11. However, the court also found that the complaint was wholly
23
insufficient as DeSilva failed to identify any claim for relief or cause of action.
24
court granted DeSilva fifteen (15) days to file an amended complaint “that clearly identifies and
25
sets out specific causes of action.” Id.
26
Id. Therefore, the
DeSilva has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise comply with the court’s
1
October 30, 2012 order. See Doc. #12. As such, the court shall dismiss this action without
2
prejudice.
3
4
5
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action, 3:12-cv-0318, is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
DATED this 18th day of December, 2012.
8
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
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?