Matthews v. Ambridge et al

Filing 61

ORDER Denying 60 Motion for Production of Art in Support of Summary Judgment to Protect Against Civil Rights Conspiracy with Request for Additional Time for the State to Answer. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 1/10/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8

FELTON L. MATTHEWS, JR.,
9
Plaintiff,

2:12-cv-01004-PMP-CWH

10
vs.
11
ORDER
12
13

W. AMBRIDGE., et al.
Defendants.

14
15

This removed pro se prisoner civil rights action by a Nevada state inmate comes before

16

the Court on Plaintiff’s motion (#60) for production of art in support of summary judgment and

17

request for an extension of time for Defendants to respond.1

18

The motion reflects that it was mailed for filing on January 7, 2013, after, inter alia,

19

Plaintiff had filed a motion for partial summary judgment, Plaintiff then filed a motion to

20

withdraw the motion for partial summary judgment, and the Court granted the latter motion to

21

withdraw the summary judgment motion. In the present motion, Plaintiff nonetheless seeks,

22

inter alia, an order giving defense counsel “an extra seven days to answer the summary

23

judgement [sic] motion” along with an order directing that his alleged artwork be filed under

24

seal, to then be inspected by Plaintiff.

25

There is no summary judgment motion before the Court. Defendants’ answer is due

26

on January 16, 2013. The Court stated in the order setting that deadline: “It is the Court’s

27
28

1

I.e., Plaintiff is moving to extend Defendant’s response time.

1

intention to proceed forward with this matter as promptly as possible . . . .” #50, at 17.

2

Plaintiff does not have standing to seek an extension of a deadline set for Defendants.

3

Plaintiff previously sought an order, inter alia, ordering the return of his alleged artwork.

4

The Court denied the relief requested and instead ordered “only, purely pendente lite, that any

5

such alleged artwork currently in the possession of Defendants be preserved until the

6

conclusion of these proceedings, through to the conclusion of direct review.” The Court

7

expressly and very specifically declined to order any additional relief in that regard over and

8

above the preservation of the material by Defendants. #50, at 12-13. Following upon a

9

second motion by Plaintiff, the Court stated, inter alia, “nothing in the motion leads to the

10

conclusion that the limited injunction issued in the prior order (#50, at 16-17) provides

11

inadequate relief within the context of this litigation, which is the only litigation that will be

12

addressed herein.” #58, at 2. The Court again states – now for a third time – that the Court

13

will not order any further relief in this regard other than the prior limited injunction.2

14

The remainder of the motion contains extensive immaterial, impertinent, or frivolous

15

matter rehashing argument that Plaintiff has made previously and/or addressing matters not

16

before the Court on the pleadings, such as Plaintiff’s request for damages in the motion for

17

being placed in disciplinary segregation. See,e.g., #50, at 4-5, 10 & 14.

18

The frivolous motion accordingly in all respects will be denied.

19

The Court outlined in the prior order (#50) Plaintiff’s long-established history of frivolous

20

and vexatious litigation in the state and federal courts and Plaintiff’s efforts to continue this

21

vexatious and frivolous litigation activity in the present case. In that order, the Court expressly

22

cautioned Plaintiff as follows:

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff refers to a provision in a prior order discussing the filing of copies of the material under seal
with an opportunity for plaintiff to inspect the material in a fashion similar to the procedure for inspection of
inmate medical records. The Court expressly was referring to “[a]ny copies filed in connection with a motion”
filed by Defendants. #50, at 13 n.2. There currently is no motion by Defendants with exhibits before the
Court. The prior provision is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s motion. The record in this matter will not become a
repository for evidence separate and apart from other proper filings. Nor is a motion for production an
appropriate vehicle for obtaining inspection or production of materials under federal practice. Defendants are
under no obligation to file any of the alleged artwork under seal except if and as filed as an exhibit in support
of a motion by Defendants.

-2-

1

Final Admonition

2

The Court has considerable patience, but it has neither the
time nor resources to consider repeated frivolous and vexatious
filings. The Court places Plaintiff on notice that if he files any
further frivolous or vexatious papers in this matter, he will be
directed to show cause in writing why sanctions should not be
imposed under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
including imposition of substantial monetary sanctions to be
drawn in installments from his inmate account against any present
or future balance and referral to correctional authorities for
consideration of imposition of sanctions for institutional major
violation MJ48.[FN4] While the present order shall not constitute
a basis for such sanctions in and of itself, this admonition is the
last advance warning that Plaintiff will receive in this action prior
to the commencement of sanctions proceedings.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

[FN4] Under MJ48 of the NDOC Administrative
Regulations, a major violation may be committed by
the following: “Any violation of the Rules of Court,
contempt of court, submission of forged or
otherwise false documents, submissions of false
statements, violations of Rules of Civil Procedure
and/or receiving sanctions and/or warnings for any
such actions from any court. Although not
necessary for disciplinary purposes, any Order from
any court detailing such action shall be sufficient
evidence for disciplinary purposes.”

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

#50, at 16.

17

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s current filing is a frivolous and vexatious filing in violation

18

of Rule 11. The prior admonition notwithstanding, the Court will not institute sanctions

19

proceedings at this time. Nothing in this order, however, precludes correctional officials from

20

independently initiating disciplinary proceedings under MJ48 or any other applicable provision.

21

With respect to Court-initiated sanctions proceedings, Plaintiff now has been expressly

22
23
24

warned twice in this particular case.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (#60) is DENIED.
DATED: January 10, 2013

25
26
27
28

_________________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
-3-