Sanzo v. Cox et al

Filing 17

ORDER - Plaintiff's motions (Doc. ## 13 , 14 , 15 and 16 ), filed subsequent to the closure of this case, are DENIED as moot. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue these matters further, he must first file a complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a new case, taking care to leave the case number on such documents blank. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 1/6/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) Modified on 1/6/2014 for punctuation (DRM).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

MICHAEL TODD SANZO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
JAMES G. COX, et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
________________________________________)

3:13-cv-00406-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
January 6, 2014

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
On October 16, 2013, the court entered an order of dismissal without prejudice (Doc. # 7)
and judgment (Doc. # 8). On December 9, 2013, this court advised Plaintiff, again, that this case
was closed. (Doc # 12.) The order also denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (Doc. #9) and
furnished to Plaintiff a copy of the Order (Doc. # 7) which closed his case and a copy of his original
complaint. (Id.)
On December 18, 2013, Plaintiff submitted another Application for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis, a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and a Complaint. (Doc. ## 13, 14, 15.)
Subsequent thereto, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Prison Copy Work Limit. (Doc. # 16.) Each
of these documents was filed under Case No. 3:13-cv-00406-RCJ-WGC, which as noted above, is
a closed case. 1
The order dismissing this case noted that Plaintiff would be allowed to file a new action:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the application to proceed
in forma pauperis (#1) is DENIED and that this action shall be
DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint in a
new action together with either a new pauper application or payment
of the $350.00 filing fee.
(Order, Doc. # 7, at page 2, lines 10-13; emphasis added.)
1

Plaintiff’s recent filings contained the case number of this closed case. Plaintiff is advised that any
document presented to the Clerk’s Office for filing is to be filed in the case number appearing on the document
submitted by that party.

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:13-cv-00406-RCJ-WGC
Date: January 6, 2014
Page 2
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions (Doc. ## 13, 14, 15 and 16), filed subsequent to the closure
of this case, are DENIED as moot.
If Plaintiff wishes to pursue these matters further, he must first file a complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a new case, taking care to leave the case
number on such documents blank.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk