Odoms v. NDOC Utilization Review Panel et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Relief from Order; denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion to File Second Amended Complaint; denying Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/29/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
_____________________________________
)
)
J. BENJAMIN ODOMS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NDOC UTILIZATION REVIEW PANEL et )
al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.

3:13-cv-00181-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

12
13

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s prisoner civil rights complaint upon screening, giving

14

him thirty days to amend. When Plaintiff failed to amend after over sixty days, the Court

15

dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order. Plaintiff has

16

asked the Court to reconsider under Rule 60(b)(1). He argues he was under the impression he

17

was to file the amended complaint in Case No. 3:13-cv-193 and that he timely filed an amended

18

complaint in that case. He did timely file an amended complaint in that case. 1 He claims he was

19

under this impression based on the standard notice he received from the Clerk upon the opening

20

of the ‘193 Case informing him that he should file all future pleadings in the Court using that

21

case number. But that is not what the notice said. It said, “It is necessary for you to include this

22

case number [3:13-cv-00193] on all future papers sent to the court for this case.” (Notice, Apr.

23
24

1 The ‘193 Case itself was dismissed because it was duplicative of the present case. The Court
of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to pay filing fees.
1 of 2

1

17, 2013, ECF No. 2 in Case No. 3:13-cv-193 (emphasis added)). An otherwise identical notice

2

was sent to Plaintiff in the present case, indicating that he should use Case No. 3:13-cv-00181 for

3

all future papers in the present case. (See Notice, Apr. 12, 2013, ECF No. 2). The notices were

4

clear, and the Court therefore finds no excusable neglect.

5

CONCLUSION

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Relief from Order (ECF No. 7), the

7

motion to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8), and the Motion for Judgment on the

8

Pleadings (ECF No. 9) are DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 29th day of September, 2014.
Dated this 17th day of September, 2014.

10
11
12
13

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 of 2