Olausen v. Murguia et al

Filing 89

ORDER denying 88 Motion to Stay. If defendants oppose plaintiff's motion to amend, they shall file such opposition no later than Wednesday, October 22, 2014. Otherwise, plaintiff's motion to amend will be granted as unopposed and the case will proceed on the amended complaint as prepared by plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 10/20/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

STEVEN JOHN OLAUSEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SGT. MURGUIA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
PRESENT:

3:13-CV-0388-MMD (VPC)
MINUTES OF THE COURT
October 20, 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:
On September 3, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint (#73). This case
was stayed pending a settlement conference that was conducted on September 25, 2014 (#83).
Following the settlement conference, the court entered an order granting the defendants until
Friday, October 17, 2014 to file an opposition to plaintiff motion to amend (#86).
Rather than file an opposition to the motion, defendants filed a motion for further stay of
proceedings and instructing this court that it is required to conduct a second screening of this
action (#88). At this stage of the case, the court will not screen plaintiff’s amended complaint,
nor is it mandated to do so. The court has reviewed the defendants’ citations to unpublished
opinions in other districts which were cited by the deputy attorney general in support of the
proposition that the court is required to screen amended § 1983 complaints. While a court may
elect to rescreen an amended complaint, it is not mandated by statute as the Attorney General
suggests. This is at least the third instance that the Office of the Attorney General has told the
court that it is required to screen an amended complaint in a case that was initially screened and
filed years prior to the amended complaint.

Defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings (#88) is DENIED. If defendants oppose
plaintiff’s motion to amend, they shall file such opposition no later than Wednesday, October
22, 2014. Otherwise, plaintiff’s motion to amend will be granted as unopposed and the case will
proceed on the amended complaint as prepared by plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk