Opinion
3:24-cv-00152-ART-CSD
12-06-2024
ANDREW LINDSTROM, Plaintiff, v. NEVADA STATE MILITIA (NEVADA NATIONAL GUARD), Defendant.
ORDER
Re: ECF No. 38
Craig S. Denney United States Magistrate Judge
Before the court is Plaintiff's document entitled “Amendment to Complaint” (ECF No. 38). Defendant filed a response (ECF No. 39).
Plaintiff's “Amendment to Complaint” document is considered to be a fugitive document because it is not an amended complaint. The document fails to set forth a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction, a short and plain statement showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)-(3). Nor does the document constitute a motion for leave to amend the complaint (with proposed amended complaint attached). See LR 15-1.
The court has inherent authority to strike fugitive documents from the record. See Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-cv-01387-RLH-PAL, 2010 WL 3910072, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amendment to Complaint (ECF No. 38) shall be STRICKEN .