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.

Brothers v. Neven

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 14, 2020

TERRANCE D. BROTHERS, Plaintiff,
v.
DWIGHT NEVEN, R. ARANAS & BRIAN WILLIAMS, Defendants.

          OMNIBUS ORDER

          BRENDA WEKSLER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Presently before the Court are plaintiff Terrance D. Brothers's: motion for issuance of summons (ECF No. 17); motion for production of documents (ECF No. 18); motion to file second amended complaint (“SAC”) (ECF No. 23); response to Neven's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24); and motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25). Also before the Court are defendant Dwight Neven's: motion to strike ECF No. 18 (ECF No. 22); reply in support of his motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29); and response to Brothers's motion to file a SAC (ECF No. 30).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Brothers filed his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 1, 2017 and enclosed his original complaint therein. (ECF No. 1.) Judge Mahan screened the original complaint and dismissed it in its entirety, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 3 at 5.)

         Brothers filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 28, 2018, and it is the operative complaint in this matter. (ECF No. 5.) Judge Mahan screened the FAC and ordered that Brothers's sole claim proceed against defendants Neven and Aranas. (ECF No. 6 at 8.) Judge Mahan further ordered that Williams be dismissed from this action without prejudice. (Id. at 9.) Subsequently, this Court granted Brothers's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 13 at 2.)

         The State of Nevada accepted service on behalf of Neven but declined to accept service on behalf of Aranas. (ECF No. 14.) Instead, the State of Nevada filed, under seal, Aranas's last known address. (ECF No. 15.)

         Several motions followed. Neven filed a motion to dismiss Brothers's FAC on July 10, 2019. (ECF No. 19.) Brothers filed a response on July 19, 2019 (ECF No. 24) and Neven filed a reply on August 5, 2019 (ECF No. 29).

         Brothers filed his motion for issuance of summons on July 10, 2019, and it remains unopposed. (ECF No. 17.) Brothers filed a motion for production of documents on July 2, 2019. (ECF No. 18.) Neven, in turn, filed a motion to strike Brothers's motion for production of documents, and Brothers did not file a response. (ECF No. 22.)

         Also on July 22, Brothers filed a motion for leave to file a SAC. (ECF No. 23.) Neven filed an opposition to that motion on August 5, 2019, and Brothers did not file a reply. (ECF No. 30.)

         Finally, Brothers filed a motion for summary judgment on July 29, 2019. (ECF No. 25.) Neven filed an opposition on August 19, 2019 (ECF No. 31) and Brothers filed a reply on August 30, 2019 (ECF No. 32).

         II. ECF NOS. 23, 24, 25, 29, AND 30.

         The Court will order that the Clerk of Court strike ECF Nos. 23, 24, 25, 29, and 30 from the record because they do not comply with the Local Rules. Both parties are admonished that all future filings must comply with the Local Rules.

         The Local Rules provide that a litigant must file a separate document “[f]or each type of relief requested or purpose of the document.” LR IC 2-2(b). At ECF Nos. 23, 24, and 25, Brothers filed a single document containing his: (1) motion for leave to file a SAC; (2) opposition to Neven's motion to dismiss; and (3) motion for summary judgment. Similarly, at ECF Nos. 29 and 30, Neven filed a single document containing his: (i) reply in support of his motion to dismiss; and (ii) opposition to Brothers's motion for leave to file a SAC. Thus, ECF Nos. 23, 24, 25, 29, and 30 violate the Local Rules because they each contain a single document seeking more than one discrete request for relief. Those filings, therefore, will be struck from the record. See LR IC 7-1 (“The court may strike documents that do not comply with these rules.”).

         Additionally, because ECF Nos. 31 and 32 are responsive to Brothers's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25), the Court will order that those filings be likewise struck from the record. If Brothers chooses to re-file his motion for summary ...


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.