Olson v. State of Nevada, Department of Public Safety et al
| Herbert S. Olson |
| State of Nevada, Department of Public Safety and Department of Motor Vehicles |
| 3:2022cv00471 |
| October 25, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Craig S Denney |
| Miranda M Du |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 29, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/13/2022. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. #9 ) to respond to the pending motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's opposition is due December 28, 2022. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TH) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Extend Time (First Request) re ECF No. #4 Motion to Dismiss by Plaintiff Herbert S. Olson. Responses due by 12/26/2022. (HKL) (sumjgm) |
| Filing 8 PLEASE DISREGARD - CLERK'S ERROR - ENTERED INTO THE WRONG CASE. NOTICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IB 2-2: In accordance with 28 USC 636(c) and FRCP 73, the parties in this action are provided with a link to the "AO 85 Notice of Availability, Consent, and Order of Reference - Exercise of Jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge" form on the Court's website - #www.nvd.uscourts.gov. AO 85 Consent forms should NOT be electronically filed. Upon consent of all parties, counsel are advised to manually file the form with the Clerk's Office. (A copy of form AO 85 has been mailed to parties not receiving electronic service.) (HKL) Modified on 12/5/2022 to denote error and regenerate NEF (HKL). |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed/Affidavit of Service by Herbert S. Olson re ECF No. #3 Summons Issued. Department of Motor Vehicles served on 11/7/2022; State of Nevada, Department of Public Safety served on 11/7/2022. (CJS) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/29/2022. Regarding the Requirements of Klingele v. Eikenberry and Rand v. Rowland as to ECF No. #4 Motion to Dismiss. Opposition due 14 days from the date of this Minute Order, and reply due seven 7 days after the filing of the opposition. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJS) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Stay Discovery re #4 Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Department of Motor Vehicles, State of Nevada, Department of Public Safety. Responses due by 12/12/2022. (Brady, Kathleen) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint, by Defendants Department of Motor Vehicles, State of Nevada, Department of Public Safety. Responses due by 12/12/2022. (Brady, Kathleen) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS ISSUED as to State of Nevada, Department of Public Safety; Department of Motor Vehicles. (DRM) |
| Filing 2 ADVISORY LETTER to litigant. (DRM) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Department of Motor Vehicles, State of Nevada, Department of Public Safety (Filing fee $402 PAID; Receipt No. 3-0058.) by Herbert S. Olson. Proof of service due by 1/23/2023. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons, #2 Receipt re Filing Fee) (Two Standard Summons Forms mailed to P, together with return copies of Complaint and proposed summons, with note to please use standard summons forms.)(DRM) |
| Case randomly assigned to Chief Judge Miranda M. Du and Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. (DRM) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
