Kevin Kennedy v. Shelly Williams, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedNovember 18, 2025
Docket2:21-cv-01358
StatusUnknown

This text of Kevin Kennedy v. Shelly Williams, et al. (Kevin Kennedy v. Shelly Williams, et al.) 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
Kevin Kennedy v. Shelly Williams, et al., (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Kevin Kennedy, Case No. 2:21-cv-01358-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Shelly Williams, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause (ECF No. 106), 12 affidavit “Inquiring into the Filing of Response to Court’s 105 Order to Show Cause” (ECF No. 13 107), and “Emergency Motion for Judicial Assistance” (ECF No. 108). Because the Court finds 14 that Plaintiff has answered the Court’s questions in its order to show cause, it deems the order to 15 show cause satisfied and extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint. 16 Because the Court finds that Plaintiff seeks relief in his affidavit, but did not properly file it as a 17 motion, the Court strikes Plaintiff’s affidavit. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has not 18 shown a legal basis for the relief he seeks in his emergency motion, the Court denies it. 19 I. Background. 20 Plaintiff is proceeding on one remaining cause of action for denial of access to the Courts 21 against Defendant John Doe #1. (ECF No. 90) (minutes of proceedings). This claim arises out of 22 Plaintiff’s allegation that, in February of 2021, someone in the prison law library failed to 23 properly process Plaintiff’s mail containing his habeas corpus petition, causing Plaintiff to miss 24 the March 9, 2021, filing deadline. (ECF No. 64) (screening order). In dismissing Plaintiff’s 25 other claims, the Court originally gave Plaintiff until March 24, 2025, to amend his complaint 26 naming John Doe #1. (ECF No. 90). The Court explained that “[f]ailure to do so may lead to 27 dismissal of the case.” (Id.). 1 On March 24, 2025, the Court noted that Plaintiff was having difficulty determining John 2 Doe #1’s identity. (ECF No. 96). The Court therefore extended the deadline by which Plaintiff 3 needed to file his amended complaint to May 23, 2025. The Court also granted Plaintiff’s request 4 for a subpoena that he could use to identify the Doe defendant. 5 Plaintiff filed a document titled “second amended complaint” the next day. (ECF No. 97). 6 But that document, along with Plaintiff’s memorandum (ECF No. 98) and affidavit (ECF No. 99) 7 in support of that document, outline the current difficulties Plaintiff is having with the prison 8 mailroom, not his 2021 difficulties. Plaintiff specifically asserted that he provided the prison 9 mailroom with his second amended complaint on March 20, 2025, but did not receive an e-filing 10 receipt for the document. (ECF No. 98 at 2). 11 Given these issues, and the fact that Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by May 12 23, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not recommend 13 dismissal of his case for his failure to file a timely amended complaint. (ECF No. 105). The 14 Court required Plaintiff to do the following: (1) show cause why the Court should not recommend 15 dismissal of this case for Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint on or before May 25, 16 2025; (2) explain what issues Plaintiff has faced in filing his amended complaint in this case only; 17 and (3) explain whether he needs additional time to file his amended complaint. 18 Plaintiff filed a timely response. (ECF No. 106).1 In it, he asserts that his amended 19 complaint has been filed for many months at ECF No. 95, but that due to issues he experienced 20 with the law library, his complaint was filed in four parts. Plaintiff also asserts that he has not 21 received a response to his subpoena or a response to his request for transcripts. 22 About three weeks later, Plaintiff filed an affidavit “Inquiring into the Filing of Response 23 to Court’s 105 Order to Show Cause.” (ECF No. 107). In it, Plaintiff asks about the status of his 24 response to the order to show cause. Plaintiff asks the Court to inform him whether it received 25

26 1 Plaintiff’s response is five pages long. But Plaintiff attaches eighty-seven pages of exhibits, 27 many of which consist of filings Plaintiff made in other cases. In deciding Plaintiff’s response, the Court considers only the arguments and assertions Plaintiff makes in his response, not the 1 his filing, to review the filings he has already made, and to explain why Plaintiff has not received 2 responses to his subpoena and transcript request. 3 Plaintiff then filed an emergency motion “for Judicial Assistance.” (ECF No. 108).2 4 Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that he filed other documents into other 5 cases. Plaintiff also outlines the delays and difficulties he asserts he has experienced in this case 6 and others. Plaintiff presents certain “questions of law” he requests that the Court answer, asking 7 about what his rights are, how to pursue his civil rights claims, which court to seek redress from, 8 and what he should do in this case and his others. Plaintiff finally asks the Court to decide his 9 pending motions, to provide him with a “quick remedy,” and to order that the transcripts he 10 requested and subpoena responses he sought be provided. 11 II. Discussion. 12 A. Response to order to show cause. 13 The Court deems its order to show cause satisfied given Plaintiff’s response. Plaintiff has 14 shown that he attempted to meet the Court’s amended complaint deadline, but was unsuccessful 15 given issues he encountered with filing. Plaintiff also explains, albeit not always clearly, what 16 difficulties he has had filing his amended complaint. Finally, although Plaintiff does not 17 explicitly request additional time to amend his complaint, he points out that he has not received 18 the transcript or subpoena responses that would allow him to do so. So, the Court liberally 19 construes Plaintiff’s response as requesting additional time. 20 Given Plaintiff’s explanation, the Court finds its order to show cause satisfied. The Court 21 will further give Plaintiff an additional twenty-one days to again move for a subpoena. In any 22 motion for a subpoena, Plaintiff must explain how he attempted to serve his prior subpoena and 23 why he believes that service was unsuccessful. The Court directs Plaintiff to Federal Rule of 24 25

26 2 Plaintiff’s emergency motion is eleven pages long. He attaches eighty-one pages of exhibits, 27 including court orders in this case and filings in other cases. In deciding Plaintiff’s motion, the Court only considers the arguments in Plaintiff’s motion, not the attached exhibits or allegations 1 Civil Procedure 45(b) regarding service of a subpoena.3 The Court will further send Plaintiff 2 another copy of the transcript order form so that he may again attempt to obtain the transcripts he 3 seeks. Plaintiff must fill out the form and mail it to Patricia Ganci, 333 Las Vegas Blvd South, 4 Las Vegas, NV 89101. 5 The Court will give Plaintiff an additional sixty days to file his amended complaint 6 identifying John Doe #1. The Court will not consider Plaintiff’s filing at ECF No. 95 and other 7 filings as his amended complaint because a complaint must be complete in itself. The Court will 8 not piece his complaint together from multiple filings. The Court further informs Plaintiff that 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain 10 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (emphasis added). Plaintiff 11 must avoid rambling allegations that have nothing to do with his one remaining claim. 12 13 14 15

16 3 This rule provides the following: 17 (b) Service. 18 (1) By Whom and How; Tendering Fees. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena.

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

Related

Harlan L. Jacobsen v. Richard Filler
790 F.2d 1362 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kevin Kennedy v. Shelly Williams, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kevin-kennedy-v-shelly-williams-et-al-nvd-2025.