Machlan v. Neven et al

Filing 27

ORDER GRANTING 23 Motion to Strike : # 21 , 22 are hereby STRICKEN. Response to # 25 Motion to Amend due by Wednesday 7/9/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 6/25/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ROBERT MACHLAN,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DWIGHT NEVEN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )
PRESENT:

3:13-CV-0337-MMD (VPC)
MINUTES OF THE COURT
June 25, 2014

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:
Plaintiff filed a proposed amended complaint (#21) on May 15, 2014, and a corrected
proposed amended complaint (#22) on May 20, 2014. Defendants filed a motion to strike the
proposed amended complaint(s) (#21/22) because plaintiff did not first seek leave of court to do
file an amended complaint. Plaintiff opposed the motion (#24) and filed a motion to amend
complaint (#25) in an attempt to correct his mistake. Defendants replied (#26) that plaintiff’s
motion to amend was now ten days beyond the deadline to amend of June 2, 2014.
Defendant is correct that plaintiff must follow the dictates of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 and Local
Rule 15-1 and file a motion to amend in order to be granted leave to amend his complaint.
Therefore, defendants’ motion to strike (#23) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s proposed amended
complaint (#21) and corrected proposed amended complaint (#22) are hereby STRICKEN.
However, the court notes that the plaintiff is proceeding in pro se. “In civil rights cases
where the plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and must afford
plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.” Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621,
623 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Therefore, the
court will consider plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint (#25) timely filed due to plaintiff’s
previous efforts in May to amend his complaint. Defendants shall have to and including

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 to file any opposition it may have to the motion to amend or it will be
considered unopposed pursuant to LR 7-2(d).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk