Kapetan v. Cox

Filing 95

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 8/24/2015, granting 79 motion to strike and denying 88 motion for leave. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

DANIEL KAPETAN,

3:13-cv-00171-MMD-VPC

Plaintiff,
MINUTES OF THE COURT
v.
JAMES COX, et al.,
Defendants.

PRESENT:

August 24, 2015

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is defendants’ motion to strike (#79) plaintiff’s purported stipulation to
add Rex Reed as a defendant (#74), and also plaintiff’s motion for leave to add Rex Reed as a
defendant (#88). Defendants opposed (#91) and plaintiff replied (#94).
The court may strike an improper filing under its “inherent power over the administration
of its business.” Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995). Defendants’ motion to
strike (#79) is GRANTED. As defendants explain in their motion, plaintiff did not secure their
agreement to adding Rex Reed as a defendant. Thus, there is no valid stipulation. Docket no. 74
is hereby STRICKEN.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave (#88) is DENIED. Plaintiff argues that, as a pro se party, he
should be held to less stringent standards. Although true, plaintiff misinterprets the application
of this rule. Although Hanes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) and other cases require that he be
held to a more minimal pleading standard, he is nevertheless expected to read, understand, and
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice.

To properly add a party, plaintiff must amend his complaint. Local Rule II 15-1 requires
that plaintiff “attach the proposed amended pleading to any motion to amend, so that it will be
complete in itself without reference to the superseding pleading.” Plaintiff’s motion fails to
include an amended complaint. Therefore, his motion is procedurally improper and the court
shall deny his motion. If plaintiff chooses to file a procedurally proper motion, he is advised to
review the applicable pleading standards when preparing the amended complaint. Simply
including Rex Reed by name may not satisfy his obligation to state a claim that is “plausible on
its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk