Bacon v. Reyes

Filing 158

ORDER Granting 154 Motion to Strike 152 Motion to Set Aside. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/8/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

PERCY LAVAE BACON,

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12

OSWALD REYES, et al.,

13

Case No. 2:12-cv-01222-JCM-VCF

Defendants.

ORDER

14
15

Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Percy Bacon’s motion to set aside the clerk’s

16

judgment. (Doc. # 152). The state defendants have filed a motion to strike in response. (Doc. # 154).

17

Plaintiff’s motion essentially challenges an order entered by this court granting defendants’

18

motion to dismiss based on preclusion and failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (See doc. #

19

144). After the entry of that order, plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit

20

as “so insubstantial as to not warrant further review.” (See doc. # 148).

21

In response, plaintiff has filed the instant motion. Once again, plaintiff has failed to comply with

22

the screening requirements previously imposed on him. (See doc. ## 98, 111, 113, 144). As indicated

23

in each of those orders, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply would result in the court striking

24

any non-conforming document.

25

The court has grown exceedingly weary of this plaintiff’s endless filings. As indicated in the

26

order dismissing this case, plaintiff had at that time “ filed over 60 motions on a docket that consists

27

of only 143 entries. In addition, he has filed countless responses and replies which the court has been

28

forced to sift through. Most are duplicative and incomprehensible; all are without merit.” (Doc. # 144,

1

p. 3). The number of entries has only grown since the issuance of that order; the instant motion is

2

simply another re-hashing of an argument that has been repeatedly rejected.

3

It is abundantly clear that this plaintiff simply refuses to take “no” for an answer. The court

4

declines to accept defendants’ invitation to refer plaintiff to correctional authorities for institutional

5

disciplinary violations at this time. However, plaintiff should take this order as a final warning that

6

another frivolous or non-complying motion will result in the court’s reconsidering defendants’

7

invitation.

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendants’ motion to strike

10
11
12
13

(doc. # 154) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to set aside judgment (doc. # 152) be, and
the same hereby is, STRICKEN.
DATED April 8, 2014.

14
15

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-