Grant v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

D. Nevada

Grant v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

DecidedApril 19, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-01629

StatusUnknown

This text of Grant v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Grant v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grant v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, (D. Nev. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 CLAUDE GRANT, 8 Case No.: 2:20-cv-01629-JAD-NJK Plaintiff(s), 9 Order v. 10 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 11 DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is an order for Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not 14 be dismissed for his failure to comply with the local rules and the Court’s orders to confer with the 15 defense and to participate in the filing of a discovery plan. Docket No. 37. 16 Plaintiff has filed a response that does not address these violations and, instead, discusses 17 the substance of his claims. Docket No. 38. Plaintiff’s views as to the substance of his claims are 18 not at issue. What is currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the applicable 19 rules and the Court’s orders. A party proceeding without an attorney is required to comply with 20 the governing rules and orders. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 Violation of these rules and orders may lead to significant ramifications, including potentially the 22 dismissal of a plaintiff’s case. 23 The Court will afford Plaintiff one final opportunity to comply with his obligations on 24 this issue. Plaintiff must promptly contact defense counsel to confer regarding a discovery plan. 25 Moreover, a joint discovery plan must be filed by May 3, 2021. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 26 THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CASE BE 27 DISMISSED. 28 ] The Court will otherwise defer resolution of the pending order to show cause so that it can 2|| evaluate whether Plaintiff has complied with his obligations as stated above. To the extent Plaintiff 3] does not contact defense counsel as required above, Defendants must file a notice so attesting by 4] May 5, 2021. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: April 19, 2021 Nancy J. Koppe\, 8 United States-Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 CLAUDE GRANT, 8 Case No.: 2:20-cv-01629-JAD-NJK Plaintiff(s), 9 Order v. 10 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 11 DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is an order for Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not 14 be dismissed for his failure to comply with the local rules and the Court’s orders to confer with the 15 defense and to participate in the filing of a discovery plan. Docket No. 37. 16 Plaintiff has filed a response that does not address these violations and, instead, discusses 17 the substance of his claims. Docket No. 38. Plaintiff’s views as to the substance of his claims are 18 not at issue. What is currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the applicable 19 rules and the Court’s orders. A party proceeding without an attorney is required to comply with 20 the governing rules and orders. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 Violation of these rules and orders may lead to significant ramifications, including potentially the 22 dismissal of a plaintiff’s case. 23 The Court will afford Plaintiff one final opportunity to comply with his obligations on 24 this issue. Plaintiff must promptly contact defense counsel to confer regarding a discovery plan. 25 Moreover, a joint discovery plan must be filed by May 3, 2021. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 26 THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CASE BE 27 DISMISSED. 28 ] The Court will otherwise defer resolution of the pending order to show cause so that it can 2|| evaluate whether Plaintiff has complied with his obligations as stated above. To the extent Plaintiff 3] does not contact defense counsel as required above, Defendants must file a notice so attesting by 4] May 5, 2021. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: April 19, 2021 Nancy J. Koppe\, 8 United States-Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Grant v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-las-vegas-metropolitan-police-department-nvd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack