Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Randolph v. State

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 13, 2014

CHARLES RANDOLPH, Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, ex. rel. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al., Defendants.

ORDER

WILLIAM G. COBB, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court are Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. # 104)[1] and proposed First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 104-1) and his Motion to Dispense with Local Rule of Special Proceeding 2-1 (Doc. # 105). Defendants have filed non-oppositions to both motions. (Docs. # 106, # 107.) The court will address these motions in reverse order.

I. DOC. # 105

First, Plaintiff requests that the court dispense with Local Rule of Special Proceeding (LSR) 2-1, which states that "[a] civil rights complaint filed by a person who is not represented by counsel shall be on the form provided by this Court." Plaintiff asks that he be permitted to submit his proposed amended complaint without utilizing the court's form section 1983 complaint. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. # 104) is GRANTED.

II. DOC. # 104

Second, the court will address Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and proposed amended complaint.

A. Background

Plaintiff originally filed his complaint in the Seventh Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada and it was subsequently removed to this court. (Doc. # 1.) Plaintiff, an inmate in the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) alleged that his constitutional and statutory rights were violated when defendants allegedly recorded calls placed to his attorney, James A. Colin. He sued the State of Nevada, ex. rel. NDOC, James "Greg" Cox (NDOC director), E.K. McDaniel (then warden of ESP), Renee Baker (then associate warden of programs and acting warden of ESP), Pam Del Porto (inspector general at ESP), Century Link Sales Solutions, Inc. and Embarq Communications, Inc. (alleged to be telephone contractors for NDOC). (Compl., Doc. # 7.)

Plaintiff included a claim against Century Link Sales Solutions, Inc. and Embarq Communications, Inc. for violation of the Federal Wiretap Act. These defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 5.) They asserted that first, neither Century Link Sales Solutions, Inc. nor Embarq Communications, Inc. provided these services, and the correct entity was Embarq Payphone Services, Inc. ( Id. at n. 1.) They further argued that Plaintiff's allegations indicated that he consented to the recording of his calls. ( Id. at 4-7.)

Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to substitute Embarq Payphone Services, Inc., in place of Century Link Sales Solutions, Inc. and Embarq Communications, Inc., which the court granted. (Docs. # 32, 33.) Century Link Sales Solutions, Inc. and Embarq Communications, Inc. were dismissed from the action. ( Id. )

On October 29, 2013, District Judge Robert C. Jones entered an order granting the motion to dismiss (but denied the NDOC defendants' joinder to the motion). (Doc. # 42.) Therefore, Judge Jones ordered that Embarq Payphone Services, Inc. was no longer a party to the case. ( Id. at 10.)

A scheduling order was entered (Doc. # 37), and the deadlines were subsequently extended by stipulation of the party and then again by order of the court (Docs. # 67, # 94.) Notably, the deadline to amend pleadings was extended to August 29, 2014. (Doc. # 94.)

On July 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to amend (Doc. # 104) and proposed amended complaint (Doc. # 104-1). As indicated above, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.