Opinion
3:22-cv-00482-MMD-CSD
08-01-2023
JUSTIN ODELL LANGFORD, Plaintiff v. CHARLES DANIELS, et al., Defendants
ORDER RE: ECF NO. 22
Craig S. Denney, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) proceeding pro se with this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Chief Judge Du screened Plaintiff's original complaint and allowed him to proceed with claims for violation of his rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), as well as a due process claim against defendants Daniels, Sisolak, Garrett, Davis, Snyder, Waters, Williams, LaFleur, and Wickham. (ECF No. 9.) Around the same time Chief Judge Du issued her screening order, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to dismiss that amended complaint (ECF No. 22) and he filed a new amended complaint (ECF No. 23). The new amended complaint is substantially similar to the original complaint, but it adds L. Lucas as a defendant and includes an equal protection claim. The existing Defendants did not file a response to the motion concerning the new amended complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. See LR 7-2(d). The amended complaint set forth at ECF No. 8 is STRICKEN, and Plaintiff's first amended complaint at ECF No. 23 is the operative pleading.
Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Attorney General's Office shall file a notice indicating whether it will accept service for defendant L. Lucas. If it will not accept service for L. Lucas, it shall file L. Lucas' last known address under seal. If the last known address is a post office box, the Attorney General's Office shall attempt to obtain and provide a last known physical address.
Defendants have 30 days from the date of this Order to file an answer or otherwise respond to the first amended complaint (ECF No. 23).
IT IS SO ORDERED.