Reberger v. Koehn et al
Filing
63
ORDER granting Plaintiff's ECF No. 1 IFP application; NDOC to pay Clerk from inmate account (copy of order sent to Finance and NDOC Chief of Inmate Services); directing Clerk to e-serve NV AG with this order and the ECF No. 8 Second Amended Complaint (Second Amended complaint to AG via NEF regeneration 01/23/2017); directing AG to advise Court by 02/13/2017 re acceptance of service; if service cannot be accepted, Plaintiff shall file a motion identifying the unserved def endants(s), requesting issuance of a summons and specifying full name/address of the defendant(s); answer/response due by 03/24/2017 for any defendants represented; Plaintiff shall serve defendants a copy of all pleadings and include certificate of service. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 01/23/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8
9
LANCE REBERGER,
Plaintiff,
10
11
Case No. 3:15-cv-00551-MMD-VPC
ORDER
v.
MICHAEL KOEHN et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14
This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
15
a state prisoner. Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF
16
No. 1). Based on the financial information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable
17
to prepay the full filing fee in this matter.
18
The Court entered a screening order on June 15, 2016. (ECF No. 9). The screening
19
order imposed a 90-day stay and the Court entered a subsequent order in which the
20
parties were assigned to mediation by a court-appointed mediator. (ECF No. 9, 11). The
21
Office of the Attorney General has filed a status report indicating that settlement has not
22
been reached and informing the Court of its intent to proceed with this action. (ECF No.
23
18.)
24
For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that:
25
1.
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted.
26
Plaintiff will not be required to pay an initial installment of the filing fee. In the event that
27
this action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
28
1915(b)(2).
1
2.
The movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without
2
the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of security
3
therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis will not extend to the
4
issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense.
5
3.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), the Nevada Department of Corrections
6
must pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the
7
preceding month’s deposits to Plaintiff’s account (Lance Reberger, #39494), in the
8
months that the account exceeds $10.00, until the full $350.00 filing fee has been paid
9
for this action. The Clerk of the Court will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division
10
of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk of the Court will also send a copy of this order to the
11
attention of the Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O.
12
Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702.
13
4.
The Clerk of the Court will electronically serve a copy of this order and a
14
copy of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 8) on the Office of the Attorney
15
General of the State of Nevada, attention Kat Howe.
16
5.
Subject to the findings of the screening order (ECF No. 9), within twenty-
17
one (21) days of the date of entry of this order, the Attorney General’s Office must file a
18
notice advising the Court and Plaintiff of: (a) the names of the defendants for whom it
19
accepts service; (b) the names of the defendants for whom it does not accept service,
20
and (c) the names of the defendants for whom it is filing the last-known-address
21
information under seal. As to any of the named defendants for whom the Attorney
22
General’s Office cannot accept service, the Office must file, under seal, but will not serve
23
the inmate Plaintiff the last known address(es) of those defendant(s) for whom it has such
24
information. If the last known address of the defendant(s) is a post office box, the Attorney
25
General's Office will attempt to obtain and provide the last known physical address(es).
26
6.
If service cannot be accepted for any of the named defendant(s), Plaintiff
27
must file a motion identifying the unserved defendant(s), requesting issuance of a
28
summons, and specifying a full name and address for the defendant(s). For the
2
1
defendant(s) as to which the Attorney General has not provided last-known-address
2
information, Plaintiff must provide the full name and address for the defendant(s).
3
7.
If the Attorney General accepts service of process for any named
4
defendant(s), such defendant(s) must file and serve an answer or other response to the
5
second amended complaint within sixty (60) days from the date of this order.
6
8.
Henceforth, Plaintiff must serve upon defendant(s) or, if an appearance has
7
been entered by counsel, upon their attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion or other
8
document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff must include with the original
9
document submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of
10
the document was mailed or electronically filed to the defendants or counsel for the
11
defendants. If counsel has entered a notice of appearance, Plaintiff will direct service to
12
the individual attorney named in the notice of appearance, at the physical or electronic
13
address stated therein. The Court may disregard any document received by a district
14
judge or magistrate judge which has not been filed with the Clerk, and any document
15
received by a district judge, magistrate judge, or the Clerk which fails to include a
16
certificate showing proper service.
17
DATED THIS 23rd day of January 2017.
18
19
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?