Lopez v. Iaela-Tokugawa

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA SAMUEL RENE LOPEZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-00876-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. [Docket Nos. 24, 25, 26] TERESSA IAELA-TOKUGAWA, 10 Defendant(s).

11 On August 22, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s 50-page complaint and dismissed that complaint with leave to amend. Docket No. 17. On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a 54-page complaint, along with a 108-page appendix. Docket Nos. 23, 23-1. Plaintiff has now filed three motions seeking expedited hearing, issuance of summons, and service of process, noting that the amended complaint was filed 49 days earlier. Docket Nos. 24, 25, 26. The Court construes these motions as seeking issuance of an order screening the amended complaint.1 17 Plaintiff is advised that the judges assigned to this case are also assigned to hundreds of other civil cases, in addition to myriad criminal cases and criminal duty responsibilities (which take priority over civil cases). Absent unusual circumstances not present here, the Court does not have the luxury of ignoring its other duties to other cases to prioritize one civil case. Cf. Mazzeo v. Gibbons, 2010 WL 3020021, at *1 (D. Nev. July 27, 2010). Indeed, Plaintiff has already been informed that: “the Court will screen your complaint and issue a separate screening order in the future. The Court may issue a screening order several months after you submit your complaint.”

24 Docket No. 7 at 2 (emphasis added); see also Docket No. 16 (same).

1 The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 28 89, 94 (2007). ] Accordingly, Plaintiffs pending motions are DENIED. Docket Nos. 24, 25, 26. In due 2|) course, the Court will issue a further screening order and any other order necessitated by the result 3] of that screening order.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: October 29, 2024 UZ Nancy J..Koppe 7 United States Magistrate Judge