Lorraine v. Wallin et al
ORDER The court construes the complaint to be Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint in 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC, and directs the Clerk to FILE the complaint (ECF No. 1-1 in 3:17- cv-00127-RCJ-WGC) in case 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC< p> The pending application to proceed IFP in this action, 3:17-cv-00127-RCJ-WGC is DENIED AS MOOT, and the Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE case 3:17-cv- 00127-RCJ-WGC. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 3/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:17-cv-00127-RCJ-WGC
NORMAL L. WALLIN, et. al.,
Plaintiff Constance Lorraine filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and
pro se complaint in 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC, alleging, in essence, that she was fraudulently
induced into a purchasing a vehicle that she advised she could not afford. She filed various
motions in that case, including a motion to amend. (See 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC, ECF No.
13.) At a January 10, 2017 status conference, the court advised Plaintiff that pursuant to Local
Rule 15-1, she had to attach the proposed amended complaint to her motion for leave to amend.
(See Minutes of Jan. 10, 2017 status conference, 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC, ECF No. 43 at 2.)
Therefore, the court denied her motion to amend without prejudice, advising Plaintiff that she
could re-file the motion along with a complete copy of the proposed amended complaint. (Id.) At
that hearing, the court also addressed another motion the Plaintiff had filed, a motion for removal
of a state court case proceeding against her by one of the defendants in 3:16-cv-00409-MMDWGC. (See 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC, ECF No. 43 at 2.) The court explained to Plaintiff that
a party seeking to remove a case from state court must file a notice of removal as a new action in
federal court, and not in a pending federal case, as Plaintiff had done. (Id.)
On February 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of removal in 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC,
which was stricken by the court because it should have been filed in a new action. (See 3:16-cv00409-MMD-WGC, ECF No. 44.)
On February 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a new application to proceed IFP and pro se
complaint which alleges essentially the same allegations as are pending in the complaint in 3:16cv-00409-MMD-WGC, but adds Fiat of Reno as a defendant. (3:17-cv-00127-RCJ-WGC, ECF
Nos. 1, 1-1.) The court believes that Plaintiff may have been confused about the direction it gave
her at the January 10, 2017 status conference, as it appears that the new complaint Plaintiff filed
should actually be the proposed amended complaint in 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC, which
should have been filed in the 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC case and not as a new action.
The court will issue a separate order directing that the notice of removal filed in 3:16-cv00409-MMD-WGC be filed in a new action. Insofar as this action, 3:17-cv-00127-RCJ-WGC, is
concerned, the court construes the complaint to be Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint in
3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC, and directs the Clerk to FILE the complaint (ECF No. 1-1 in 3:17cv-00127-RCJ-WGC) in case 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC, removing the 3:17-cv-00127-RCJWGC case number and inserting the 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC case number. The court will
consider the proposed amended complaint with Plaintiff’s previously filed motion to amend, and
will issue an order concerning screening and service of the proposed amended complaint in that
action in due course.
The pending application to proceed IFP in this action, 3:17-cv-00127-RCJ-WGC is
DENIED AS MOOT, and the Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE case 3:17-cv00127-RCJ-WGC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 1, 2017.
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?