Slaughter v. Escamilla et al

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING as moot ECF No. 24 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 11/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA RICKIE SLAUGHTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ESCAMILLA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________) 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC MINUTES OF THE COURT November 13, 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 Deem the Factual Paragraphs within Plaintiff’s First Supplemental and Amended Civil Rights Complaint as Admitted (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff requests the court to deem paragraphs 1-16 under Count III in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as admitted because “Defendants failed to respond to these factual paragraphs in their Answer.” (Id. at 2.) Defendants have opposed Plaintiff’s motion stating “Defendants have filed an Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Supplemental and Civil Rights Complaint. In the Amended Answer, Defendants respond to and deny Count III of the Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 28.) On October 31, 2017, this court denied as moot Plaintiff’s motion that this court screen new Count III. (ECF No. 27.) This court determined that because Defendants had previously filed an Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25), Plaintiff’s motion for screening and compelling Defendants to answer Count III (ECF No. 23) was moot. (ECF No. 27.) Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) allows a party to amend its pleading if filed within 21 days after service of the original pleading. Rule 15(a)(1)(A). The Defendants’ original answer was filed on October 5, 2017. (ECF No. 20.) The Defendants’ Amended Answer was filed on October 30, 2017. (ECF No. 25.) Thus, it appears Defendants should technically have either sought consent of the Plaintiff or leave of court to file the Amended Answer. Rule 15(a)(2). /// Minutes of the Court November 13, 2017 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Page Two Assuming that Plaintiff would not have consented, had Defendants sought leave of court, Rule 15(a)(2) states the court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” (emphasis added) Inasmuch as the court has previously denied Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 23) to compel Defendants to answer Count III, and inasmuch as Defendants have filed their Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25), Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Factual Paragraphs within Plaintiff’s First Supplemental and Amended Civil Rights Complaint as Admitted (ECF No. 24) is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK By: /s/ Deputy Clerk

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?