Campana v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 13

ORDER re 12 Letter from Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 8/19/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

COREY MATTHEW CAMPANA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

3:15-cv-00214-RCJ-WGC
ORDER
re: Doc. # 12

Before the court is a letter dated 8-3-15 received from Plaintiff Corey Campana. (Doc. #12.1)
Plaintiff's letter states with respect to his lawsuit, Case No. 3-15-cv-00214, that:

18

“For clarification to the court this case is dismissed w/prejudice solely to the White Pine
County Defendants' which are Rick Ashby & Dan Watts. It is going forward with the
remaining Defendants."

19

The court is confused as to the proposed "clarification" Plaintiff submits. The case history

20

reflects that Plaintiff initiated his action on April 15, 2015, with the submission of an application to

21

proceed in forma pauperis and a civil rights complaint. (Doc. ## 1, 1-1.) On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff

22

sought leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. # 3). In so doing, Plaintiff has submitted pages that

23

he wanted the court to attach to the end of his original motion. Although granting his motion to amend,

24

the court declined to attach documents to an original filing. Plaintiff was advised that if he wished to

25

file an amended complaint, it must be complete in and of itself. (Id.)

26

Plaintiff chose not to file an amended complaint but instead requested the court to screen his

27

"initial civil complaint only." (Doc. # 11.) Thus, Plaintiff's original complaint, Doc. # 1-1, was placed

28

in line for screening in the order received.
1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

Returning to the matter of Plaintiff's more recent letter, the court cannot understand Plaintiff's

2

statement he is dismissing "White Pine Defendants...Rick Ashby & Dan Watts." (Doc. # 12.) Neither

3

of these two individuals was named as a defendant in Plaintiff's initial complaint. (Doc. # 1-1 at 2-5.)

4

Therefore, no order can be entered dismissing individuals who were not a party in the first instance.

5

Plaintiff's letter has also brought to the court's attention an earlier letter Plaintiff submitted

6

advising that he "included an Order to show cause for an (sic) Preliminary Injunction with my complaint

7

but it looks like it was included as part of the complaint. Pg. 22-25 of 66 is a separate Motion." (Doc.

8

# 10.) The reason why "it" was included as "part of the complaint" is because that is how Plaintiff

9

submitted the document, i.e., Doc. 1-1 at pp. 22-25. The court will consider whether the verbiage in

10

Plaintiff's complaint entitled "Order to Show Cause for an (sic) Preliminary Injunction" should be treated

11

independently as a motion for a preliminary injunction when Plaintiff's complaint is screened.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED: August 19, 2015.

14

____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2