Garrett v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 2:19-CV-1159 JCM (VCF). (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20191212b92
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the matter of Garrett Sr. v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, case number 2:19-cv-01159-JCM-VCF. On October 18, 2019, petitioner Jamon Hicks filed a petition for permission to practice pro hac vice. (ECF No. 8). Hicks failed to have the verified petition notarized, so a minute order was entered directing Hicks to refile the petition with a notary's signature and seal. (ECF No. 9); see LR IA 11-2(a) ("Appli
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the matter of Garrett Sr. v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, case number 2:19-cv-01159-JCM-VCF. On October 18, 2019, petitioner Jamon Hicks filed a petition for permission to practice pro hac vice. (ECF No. 8). Hicks failed to have the verified petition notarized, so a minute order was entered directing Hicks to refile the petition with a notary's signature and seal. (ECF No. 9); see LR IA 11-2(a) ("Applic..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is the matter of Garrett Sr. v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, case number 2:19-cv-01159-JCM-VCF.
On October 18, 2019, petitioner Jamon Hicks filed a petition for permission to practice pro hac vice. (ECF No. 8). Hicks failed to have the verified petition notarized, so a minute order was entered directing Hicks to refile the petition with a notary's signature and seal. (ECF No. 9); see LR IA 11-2(a) ("Applications must be by verified petition on the form furnished by the clerk."). Hicks refiled the petition on October 22, 2019, properly notarized but without an appropriate signature from plaintiff or plaintiff's authorized representative. (ECF No. 11). Another minute order was then entered directing Hicks to refile the petition in compliance with Local Rule IA 11-2. (ECF No. 12). No revised petition has since been filed.
Therefore, the court will deny Hicks' verified petition (ECF No. 8). See LR IA 11-2(h) ("The court may grant or deny a petition to practice under this rule.").
Hicks shall file, within ten (10) days of the entry of this order, a verified petition that fully complies with the applicable local rules. Failure to timely comply will result in "the striking of any and all documents previously filed by the attorney." LR IA 11-2(j).
Accordingly,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
