Perez v. North Las Vegas ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Jose Abel Perez, 2:24-cv-00918-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING MOTION 5 vs. 6 City of North Las Vegas, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court is pro se plaintiff Jose Abel Perez’s Motion to Merge All Three 9 Complaints (ECF No. 13). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the motion. 10 DISCUSSION 11 Plaintiff requests to merge his Complaint (ECF No. 7-2), Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10), 12 and First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12). See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 13 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed[.]’”). However, this is 14 an improper request. Plaintiff is reminded that “when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, ‘[t]he 15 amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” Rhodes 16 v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th 17 Cir.1967)). An amended complaint must be “complete in itself, including exhibits, without reference to 18 the superseded pleading.” LR 15-1(a). Therefore, the proper procedure is for plaintiff to file an amended 19 complaint that includes all claims against all defendants. Thus, the Court also denies the motion on these 20 grounds. 21 Plaintiff also does not provide any points and authorities in support of his motion. See LR 7-2(d) 22 (“The failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion constitutes a 23 consent to the denial of the motion.”). Therefore, the Court also denies the motion on these grounds. 24 25 1 ACCORDINGLY, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The Motion to Merge All Three Complaints (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. 4 2. If plaintiff wishes to file a Second Amended Complaint that supersedes his First Amended 5 Complaint (ECF No. 12), then he must file the Second Amended Complaint by November ‘ 29, 2024. The Court will defer screening plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12) until after the November deadline. 7 8 DATED this 30" day of October 2024. fey ~ 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. por he ff fglaca □ United States Magigirate Judge NOTICE Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 4 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 6 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). ig This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 9 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 0 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 33 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 95 result in dismissal of the action.