McMahon v. Director of Nursing HDSP

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 2, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00442
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 JEFFREY MCMAHON, Case No. 3:24-CV-00442-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MEDIATION INFORMATION AND 6 v. MOTION FOR DEFENDANTS TO ACCEPT SERVICE 7 DIRECTOR OF NURSING HDSP, et al.,

8 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 11, 12]

9 On April 22, 2025, this Court entered a screening order in this case permitting this 10 case to proceed on an Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical 11 Condition claim against various defendants. (ECF No. 8.) In that order, the Court 12 expressly stayed this case for 90 days. (Id. at 6.) The Court ordered that during the 90- 13 day stay, "no other pleadings or papers may be filed in this case." (Id.) After the entry of 14 the stay, Plaintiff filed the following two motions: (1) motion/request for mediation 15 information, (ECF No. 11); and, (2) motion/request for Defendants acceptance of service. 16 (ECF No. 12.) For the reasons stated below, these motions are denied. 17 First, Plaintiff filed these motions in violation of the Court's 90-day stay, which 18 prohibits the filing of any additional pleading or paper during the pendency of the stay. 19 (ECF No. 8 at 6.) On this basis alone, these motions should be denied. However, these 20 motions are also premature. With respect to the motion requesting information related to 21 the mediation, the Court's screening order expressly states that it will issue a subsequent 22 order regarding the mediation. (See ECF No. 8 at 6.) That order will set the date and time 23 for the mediation and provide all the necessary information that the Plaintiff is requesting 24 related to the mediation, including the requirements for any mediation statement, what to 25 expect at the mediation, and the like. Moreover, the screening order also explains that, if 26 the parties do not settle the case at mediation, the Court will issue an order setting the 27 date for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond, which will also address the issue of 1 For all these reasons, Plaintiff's motions, (ECF Nos. 11, 12), are DENIED. 2 While the Court understands Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and may be unfamiliar 3 | with the processes of litigating a case, he is cautioned and reminded that all litigants, 4) whether appearing pro se or represented by an attorney, are required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this District, and this Court's orders. See, 6| e.g., Briones v. Rivera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1997) ("pro se litigants 7 | are not excused from following court rules"); King Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 8| 1987) ("[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other 9 | litigants"), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff is reminded to read and review the Court's orders closely before filing 11 motions in the future. Moreover, Plaintiff is also cautioned that the Court may strike 12 without further prior notice any additional motion he files that violates the stay in this case 13 | or the Court's rules or orders. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: July 2, 2025 □ 16 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28