Ammar Harris v. Clark County, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Ammar Harris, Case No. 2:22-cv-00560-RFB-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), ORDER Vv.

8] Clark County, et al., [Docket No. 95] 9 Defendant(s).

10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for additional service attempts on 11] Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, A. Ortiz, and A. Beas. Docket No. 95.!

12|| Defendants filed a response. Docket No. 102.2 On November 17, 2025, LVMPD and Ortiz filed 13] a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 14] 97. On November 20, 2025, Beas filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Docket No. 15] 103. In light of the filing of those motions, any deficiencies with service are no longer at issue.

16] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for additional service attempts is DENIED as moot.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: November 26, 2025 Nancy J»Koppe 21 United States Magistrate Judge 26 ' The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants, particularly those who are prisoners bringing civil rights claims. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013).

2 The Court declines to address the affirmative requests for relief contained within the 28] responsive brief because they are not properly before the Court. See, e.g., Local Rule IC 2-2(b).