Harris v. Daniels

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 AMMAR HARRIS, 5 Case No. 2:22-cv-00293-CDS-NJK Plaintiff, 6 Order Vv. 7 [Docket Nos. 34, 35] CHARLES DANIELS., et al., Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for clarification, Docket No. 34, and for limited discovery, Docket No. 35. Plaintiff's motion for clarification is seeking to clarify that defendant Wilson F’s full name is Wilson F. Bemales. Docket No. 34 at 2-3. The Court construes 13 pro se filings liberally, Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013), and so interprets 14! this motion as a motion to substitute parties. Because Plaintiff is merely trying to substitute an 15 incompletely named party for a completely named party, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for clarification. Docket No. 34. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to substitute Wilson F. 17] for Wilson F. Bernales on the docket sheet. 18 Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking limited discovery for the purpose of perfecting service. 19! Docket No. 35 at2. The Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 20} also ordered the Attorney General’s Office to file a notice, within twenty-one days of that order’s 21 entry, containing “(a) the names of the defendants for whom it accepts service; (b) the names of 22! the defendants for whom it does not accept service, and (c) the names of the defendants for whom 23) it is filing the last-known-address information under seal.” Docket No. 31 at 2. The Attorney 24! General’s Office has not yet filed that notice. See Docket. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for 25! limited discovery is DENIED. Docket No. 35. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Hz. 27 Dated: November 23, 2022 GR SS me Nancy J\Koppe 28 United States Magistrate Judge