Mizzoni v. State of Nevada ex rel et al

Filing 40

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 3/6/2017. Plaintiff's Motion to Respond to Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint... ECF No. 38 is DENIED with respect to the subject attendant to this matter. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JOSEPH MIZZONI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________)

3:15-cv-00499-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
March 6, 2017

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:
Before the court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Respond to Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint and Response to Court Clerk Charging Plaintiff $92.00 for Motion File
Stamped” (ECF No. 38) which was lodged in two cases in which the Plaintiff is proceeding, i.e., the
instant matter and also in Mizzoni v. State of Nevada, 3:15-cv-00313-MMD-VPC. The court will
discuss Plaintiff’s motion insofar as the subjects, as best as the court can ascertain, only pertain to
issues in 3:15-cv-00499-MMD-WGC. Plaintiff is cautioned any filing in a case should pertain solely
to the subject of that case, and filing the same document in multiple cases is inappropriate.
Defendant’s Answer
Plaintiff appears to object that Defendant’s answer (ECF No. 29) to Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 7) only pertained to Defendant Brannon. Plaintiff argues, as best as the court
can decipher, an answer should be filed on behalf of Defendant Smith against whom Plaintiff’s
complaint was allowed to proceed in the court’s Screening Order of September 2, 2016 (ECF No. 10
at 7).
After the Office of Attorney General filed a Notice of Acceptance of Service as to Defendant
Shannon (but not Smith), (ECF No. 19), the Plaintiff sought clarification as to whether the Attorney
General would be accepting service as to Defendant Smith. The court ordered, after clarifying
Defendant Smith was a party, the Office of the Attorney General to advise whether it would be
accepting service on behalf of Defendant Smith, and if not, to file Smith’s last known address under
seal. (ECF No. 24.)

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:15-cv-00499-MMD-WGC
March 6, 2017
Page Two

On February 9, 2017, Defendant’s counsel filed a notice that Defendant Smith’s last known
address was filed under seal. (ECF No. 28.) The court interpreted Defendant’s notice as a reflection
the Office of the Attorney General was unable to accept service on behalf of Defendant Smith. The
court therefore directed the Clerk’s office to issue a summons for Defendant Smith and provide a
copy of the amended complaint and the court’s order to the U.S. Marshal for service. The Clerk was
directed to send Plaintiff a USM-285 form. Plaintiff was provided until Friday, February 24, 2017
to complete and return the form to the U.S. Marshal. (ECF No. 33.) The court has been advised the
U.S. Marshal has received completed form 285 from Plaintiff and that the complaint is now out for
attempted service as to Defendant Smith.
At the present time, the U.S. Marshal has not filed a return as to whether service was effected
with regard to Mr. Smith. Unless and until Defendant Smith is served, he is under no obligation to
file an appearance in this matter.
The other subjects of Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 38) appear to pertain to Mizzoni v. State
of Nevada, 3:15-cv-00313-MMD-VPC, and this court will not address these issues.
Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 38) is DENIED with respect to the subject attendant to this
matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk