Mehudar v. Acklin, 2:16-cv-00304-RFB-CWH. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170207e77
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the court is pro se Plaintiff Heather Mehudar's Notice: Uncontested Jurat Affidavits; Proof of Delivery; Writ of Habeas Corpus Warning; Jurat Affidavit and Certificate of Service (ECF No. 64), filed on January 30, 2017. Also before the court is Plaintiff's Court Order: Arrest Warrants; Exhibits; Jurat Affidavit; and Certificate of Service (ECF No. 65), filed on February 6, 2017. These filings—which are styled as notices rather
Summary: ORDER C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the court is pro se Plaintiff Heather Mehudar's Notice: Uncontested Jurat Affidavits; Proof of Delivery; Writ of Habeas Corpus Warning; Jurat Affidavit and Certificate of Service (ECF No. 64), filed on January 30, 2017. Also before the court is Plaintiff's Court Order: Arrest Warrants; Exhibits; Jurat Affidavit; and Certificate of Service (ECF No. 65), filed on February 6, 2017. These filings—which are styled as notices rather t..
More
ORDER
C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the court is pro se Plaintiff Heather Mehudar's Notice: Uncontested Jurat Affidavits; Proof of Delivery; Writ of Habeas Corpus Warning; Jurat Affidavit and Certificate of Service (ECF No. 64), filed on January 30, 2017. Also before the court is Plaintiff's Court Order: Arrest Warrants; Exhibits; Jurat Affidavit; and Certificate of Service (ECF No. 65), filed on February 6, 2017.
These filings—which are styled as notices rather than motions—are a compendium of various documents including affidavits, orders and arrest warrants issued by the "Mehudar Court," copies of income tax returns, and various exhibits including written correspondence, certified mail tracking information, and a birth certificate. The court notes that some of these documents appear to be seeking action by the court. As the court previously advised Plaintiff in its order dated October 17, 2016:
When a document is electronically filed using the "notice" event, it does not trigger the electronic filing system to mark the document as an action item for the court. If Plaintiff seeks relief from the court, she is advised to style her requests for relief as motions, which will be automatically marked by the electronic filing system as action items. When a request is styled as a motion, it also triggers the opposing party's response deadline and the movant's reply deadline, thereby giving all parties the opportunity to be heard before the court decides the motion. Although the court will liberally construe Plaintiff's filings given that she is not represented by an attorney, Plaintiff nevertheless is required to follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Given that Plaintiff is registered as an electronic filer, she must file all documents electronically as set forth in the court's local rules. See LR IC 2-1(a).
(Order (ECF No. 40) at 2-3.)
Given that she has not styled her requests for relief as motions, Plaintiff is advised that the court will not take further action with respect to the documents filed at ECF Nos. 64-65 unless they are re-filed as motions. Plaintiff further is advised that any additional failures to comply with the court's orders and local rules of practice may subject her to sanctions under Local Rule IA 11-8(c)-(d).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
