Opinion
Case No.: 2:15-cv-1036-GMN-GWF
06-18-2017
CLARK HAMER, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA BUREAU OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING; NEVADA DISABILITY AND ADVOCACY LAW CENTER, Defendants.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Motion, (ECF No. 28), filed by pro se Plaintiff Clark Hamer ("Plaintiff"). Although Plaintiff titles the Motion as a "(Motion for Judgement [sic] on Pleading) to Issue Complaints and Summons," Plaintiff merely restates the allegations in his Third Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 19), and provides no legal analysis. The Court is therefore uncertain about what relief Plaintiff seeks with this Motion. As to Plaintiff's request to "order the summons and complaints to be served to all defendants," (Mot. at 4), the Court DENIES this request as redundant in light of Plaintiff's two pending motions asserting the same request. (See ECF Nos. 27, 33).
In light of Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant, the Court has liberally construed his filings, holding them to standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
This most recent Complaint is actually Plaintiff's second amended complaint, which Plaintiff titles as his Third Amended Complaint. For consistency, the Court will adopt Plaintiff's terminology.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks a judgment on the pleadings, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides: "After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The pleadings are closed when all required pleadings have been served and filed. Doe v. U.S., 419 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[T]he pleadings are closed for the purposes of Rule 12(c) once a complaint and answer have been filed."); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (listing pleadings). Defendants have not yet filed its answer in this action. Indeed, Plaintiff has yet to even serve Defendants. Thus, the pleadings are not closed and Plaintiff's Motion is premature. See Doe, 419 F.3d at 1061-62 (holding that a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed before any answer "was premature and should have been denied"). The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion, (ECF No. 28), is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this 18 day of June, 2017.
/s/_________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge