Vidal v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department
Vidal v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 FRANCISCO VIDAL; SANDRA Case No. 2:20-cv-00467-RFB-BNW SCHARAS; 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER 9 v. 10 LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE 11 DEPARTMENT; JOE LOMBARDO; STEVE SISOLAK; J. LINDSEY; J REINERT; K 12 ZIMMERMAN; A. SCOTT; M. GADDIS; NEVADA PAROLE & PROBATION; 13 JAMES WRIGHT 14 Defendant(s). 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Screen Complaint. ECF No. 5. For the following 16 reasons, the Court denies the complaint and closes the case. 17 On August 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the case Vidal v. Lindsey, No. 19-cv- 18 1334-JAD-BNW (“Lindsey”). Magistrate Judge Weksler screened the complaint and directed 19 Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by March 4, 2020. ECF No. 13 of Lindsey. Plaintiff filed 20 his amended complaint on March 5, 2020, but clerical error resulted in the complaint being 21 docketed as a new complaint and created a new case—this case—instead. ECF No. 1. When 22 Plaintiff notified the Court of the error, the Court issued a minute order confirming that the 23 complaint would be screened as an amended complaint in the Lindsey case. ECF No. 22 of 24 Lindsey. Because the Court shall screen the complaint in the 2019 Lindsey case, the Court shall 25 now dismiss the complaint in this case close the case.1 See Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 26 1 Plaintiff also has another pending case before the Court concerning similar, but not identical factual 27 allegations as the claims in the 2019 Lindsey case. See Vidal v. Lombardo, No.: 19-cv-1578-RFB-EJY (Lombardo). As explained in its order in that case, the Court will dismiss all claims in Lombardo that are duplicates of the claims 28 raised in Lindsey.
487 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2007) (court has discretion to dismiss an action that is duplicative of another action). 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is Dismissed without prejudice. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’ s Motion to Screen Complaint (ECF No. 5) 6 | is DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is 8 | DENIED as moot. 9 The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case. 10 DATED: May 4, 2020. 11 < < 12 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
_2-
Reference
- Status
- Unknown