Strohmeyer v. Belanger et al

Filing 186

ORDER re ECF No. 153 Order, clarifying that the conclusion should read that Plaintiff may proceed in Count IV with the First Amendment mail tampering claim against Jenkins and Bequette, and against the unidentified mailroom officers if substituted within the parameters of the operative scheduling order and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 8/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JEREMY STROHMEYER,
4

Plaintiff

5 v.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-00661-RCJ-WGC
Order
Re: ECF No. 153

6 K. BELANGER, et. al.,
7

Defendants

8
9

It has come to the court's attention that a portion of the order screening Plaintiff's third

10 amended complaint requires some clarification. At ECF No. 153, p. 16:22-23 to p. 17:1-2, the
11 court ruled that in Count IV Plaintiff states a colorable mail tampering claim against Jenkins and
12 Bequette, and that he could also proceed against the unidentified mail room officers when he learns
13 their identities and substitutes them in conformity with the operative scheduling order and the
14 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Part of this ruling appears to have been omitted in the conclusion
15 of the order. (See ECF No. 153 at p. 25:13-15.) Therefore, the court issues this Order clarifying
16 that the conclusion should read that Plaintiff may proceed in Count IV with the First Amendment
17 mail tampering claim against Jenkins and Bequette, and against the unidentified mailroom officers
18 if substituted within the parameters of the operative scheduling order and Federal Rules of Civil
19 Procedure.
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: August 23, 2019.

22
23

_________________________________
William G. Cobb
United States Magistrate Judge