Lindstrom v. Nevada State Militia

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 ANDREW LINDSTROM, Case No. 3:24-cv-00152-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. Re: ECF No. 38 7 NEVADA STATE MILITIA (NEVADA 3 NATIONAL GUARD), 9 Defendant. 10 11 Before the court is Plaintiff's document entitled “Amendment to Complaint” (ECF No. 12 | 38). Defendant filed a response (ECF No. 39). 13 Plaintiff's “Amendment to Complaint” document is considered to be a fugitive document 14 because it is not an amended complaint. The document fails to set forth a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction, a short and plain statement showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief,

47 and a demand for the relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). Nor does the document

18 constitute a motion for leave to amend the complaint (with proposed amended complaint attached). 19) See LR 15-1. 20 The court has inherent authority to strike fugitive documents from the record. See Mazzeo Gibbons, No. 2:08-cv-01387-RLH-PAL, 2010 WL 3910072, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010). 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amendment to Complaint (ECF No. 38) shall be STRICKEN. 24 25 DATED: December 6, 2024. Cs By 27 Craig S. Denney 28 United States Magistrate Judge