United States District Court, D. Nevada
FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike and Opposition to Responsive Pleadings (ECF No. 88),
filed on February 24, 2017. To date, no party has filed an
opposition to this motion and the time for opposition has now
October 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims
for restitution, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion
and unjust enrichment. Complaint (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff has served or is attempting service on all named
defendants. On January 14, 2017, Plaintiff completed service
of process on Defendant Manuel Martinez
(“Martinez”). Summonses Returned
Executed (ECF No. 43). On January 18, 2017, Martinez
filed a copy of the summons and the first page of the
complaint with the words “Refused to take it, ”
“Delivered to the wrong person, ” and
“Erroneously Delivered” written across the pages.
See ECF No. 42. The Clerk's office labeled this
document “Summons Returned Unexecuted.” On
February 4, 2017, Plaintiff completed service of process on
Defendant Malolis Munguia (“Munguia”).
Summonses Returned Executed (ECF No. 62). On
February 8, 2017, Munguia filed a document which was labeled
by the Clerk's office as “Notice of Non-Acceptance
of Offer to Contract and Non-Consent to Proceedings.”
See ECF No. 61. This document stated, among other
things, that Munguia was “not obligated to comply with
the private corporate statutes that compel and regulate this
body” and that she did not “ACCEPT THIS OFFER TO
CONTRACT” or “CONSENT TO THESE
PROCEEDINGS.” Id. Munguia sent this same
document with a copy of the summons stamped with the phrase
“I do not accept this offer to contract and do not
consent to these proceedings” to the Court on February
13, 2017. This time, the Clerk's office docketed the
document as an answer to Plaintiff's complaint.
Answer (ECF No. 70). Once the document was docketed
as a answer, Munguia began to receive courtesy copies of all
court filings. In response to a Minute Order (ECF No 68)
issued by the Court, Munguia filed another document that was
labeled as a “Notice of Non-Consent to
Proceedings.” See ECF No. 79. This document
states the following:
1. There has been no proof present to Me ‘supported by
evidences' of the legality of this case
2. I have NOT received your bond
3. I am NOT your defendant
4. I am a woman of flesh and blood living human being
5. I am NOT a resident of Clark County
6. I am NOT a resident of the state of Nevada
7. I am NOT within your ‘Jurisdiction'
seeks an order from the Court striking Defendants'
filings on the grounds that they do not comply with Rule 8 of
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. In the alternative,
Plaintiff requests that the Court deny Defendants'
filings if the Court's deems them responsive pleadings
because this Court has both subject matter and personal
jurisdiction over Defendants despite Defendants' argument
to the contrary.
filed by a pro se litigant are interpreted less stringently
than pleadings drafted by attorneys. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596 (1972);
see also United States v. Funds from Prudential
Securities, 362 F.Supp.2d 75, 82 (D.D.C.2005). However,
“the less stringent standards for pro se litigants does
not allow them to simply disregard the applicable Local and
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or render the court the
decision-maker of what claims a [litigant] may or may not
want to assert.” Funds from Prudential
Securities, 362 F.Supp.2d at 82. Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure instructs a responding party to
state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim
asserted against it ...