Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Law Firm Of C Benjamin Scroggins x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Civil Rights: Other | Nevada
Minute Order Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 9/18/2026. Before this Court is Plaintiff's motion for clarification (ECF No. 310 ) on the order at ECF No. 304. This Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion in part, and clarifies the order at ECF No. 304 as follows:This Court granted Plaintiff's motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 292) only to the extent that discovery is stayed until the pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 291) is resolved. The remaining requests for relief within ECF No. 292 were thus denied. Plaintiff may only renew these requests if they have not been mooted, resolved, or otherwise prohibited by this Court. The subjects identified in Defendants' status report (ECF No. 299) may be addressed at a future case management hearing. The parties may request such a hearing only after the pending motion to dismiss is resolved. The stay does not impact existing discovery responses, Rule 36 admissions, or preservation obligations. The parties' duty to supplement discovery, however, is stayed. If the stay is lifted, the parties must promptly comply with their obligation to supplement discovery under Rule 26(e).This Court further clarifies that Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint (ECF No. 286) does not require screening. The screening process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) only applies to parties proceeding in forma pauperis. It is also unnecessary for this Court to issue summonses and service instructions for the fourth amended complaint. The District Judge's order (ECF No. 226) granted Plaintiff leave to amend only his claims against Defendants City of North Las Vegas and William McDaniel, and both have already appeared in this case.Finally, this Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion in part, to the extent it requests any form of relief beyond clarifying the order at ECF No. 304. Plaintiff's limited objection to ECF No. 304 is separately filed on the docket (ECF No. 309) and will be addressed by the District Judge in due course. Plaintiff is reminded that for each type of relief requested or purpose of the document, a separate document must be filed. Local Rule IC 2-2(b).(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MAD)
Reply
REPLY to Response to 291 Motion to Dismiss by Defendants City of North Las Vegas, William McDaniel. (Holt, Danielle)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.