Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Prentice v. Stogner, 3:16-cv-00060-MMD-WGC. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20161024b13 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM G. COBB , Magistrate Judge . This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 by a state prisoner. Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1). Based on the financial information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to prepay the full filing fee in this matter. The Court entered a screening order on July 18, 2016. (ECF No. 4). The screening order imposed a 90-day stay and the Court entered
More

ORDER

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a state prisoner. Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1). Based on the financial information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to prepay the full filing fee in this matter.

The Court entered a screening order on July 18, 2016. (ECF No. 4). The screening order imposed a 90-day stay and the Court entered a subsequent order in which the parties were assigned to mediation by a court-appointed mediator. (ECF No. 4, 8). The Office of the Attorney General has filed a status report indicating that settlement has not been reached and informing the Court of its intent to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 17).

The Court notes that it specifically denied Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint prior to October 24, 2016. (ECF No. 12 at 1). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and three other motions on October 20, 2016. (ECF No. 13, 14, 15, 16). If Plaintiff would like his case to proceed now, he may file a notice to withdraw his amended complaint and proceed on his original complaint. If Plaintiff would like to proceed on his amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint. However, Plaintiff should be aware that the screening process will take several months. If Plaintiff's amended complaint survives screening, the Court will issue a service order and will not send the case to mediation again.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial installment of the filing fee. In the event that this action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

2. The movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense.

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), the Nevada Department of Corrections shall pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits to Plaintiff's account (Anthony Prentice, #74880), in the months that the account exceeds $10.00, until the full $350.00 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of the Court shall SEND a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk's Office. The Clerk of the Court shall also SEND a copy of this order to the attention of the Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall electronically SERVE a copy of this order on the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, attention Kat Howe.

5. On or before Friday, November 18, 2016, Plaintiff shall file a notice informing the Court of whether he intends to proceed with his amended complaint and wait for another screening order, or whether he intends to withdraw his amended complaint and proceed immediately on his original complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely notice with the Court, the Court will screen the amended complaint.

6. The motion for production of video evidence (ECF No. 15) is denied as procedurally premature.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer