From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hooker v. Clark Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jan 23, 2017
CaseNo. 2:14-cv-00036-APG-NJK (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2017)

Opinion

CaseNo. 2:14-cv-00036-APG-NJK

01-23-2017

CHRIS L. HOOKER, Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA et al., Defendants.


ORDER

I. DISCUSSION

On May 7, 2014, the Court dismissed this case without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the initial installment filing fee of $26.58 in compliance with the Court's March 21, 2014 screening order. (ECF No. 9). The Clerk of the Court entered judgment the next day. (ECF No. 10).

Over two years later, on November 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to resubmit his case and a motion to extend time. (ECF No. 14, 17). The Court denies these motions. If Plaintiff wants to pursue the allegations in his complaint, Plaintiff should file his complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Clerk of the Court and open a new case.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion to resubmit case (ECF No. 14) is denied.

It is further ordered that the motion to extend time (ECF No. 17) is denied.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff shall not file any more documents in this closed case.

Dated: January 23, 2017.

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Hooker v. Clark Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jan 23, 2017
CaseNo. 2:14-cv-00036-APG-NJK (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2017)
Case details for

Hooker v. Clark Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:CHRIS L. HOOKER, Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Jan 23, 2017

Citations

CaseNo. 2:14-cv-00036-APG-NJK (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2017)