Bacon v. Reyes
Filing
79
ORDER Denying 55 Plaintiff's Motion for a Limited Discovery Order and Granting 73 Defendants' Motion for a Joint Status Conference and Request to Stay Responses to Pending Motions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the briefing on all pendi ng motions (# 48 , # 56 , # 58 , # 59 , # 63 , # 64 , # 66 , # 68 , # 71 , and # 75 ) and on any motions filed before 05/20/2013 is STAYED. Status Conference is set for 5/20/2013 01:00 PM in LV Courtroom 3D before Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach. Plaintiff will appear telephonically. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 04/22/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
PERCY LAVAE BACON,
5
Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
OSWALD REYES, et al.,
8
9
Defendants.
10
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:12-cv-01222-JCM-VCF
ORDER
(Motion for A Limited Discovery Order
#55 and Motion For A Joint Status
Conference and Request to Stay Responses
to Pending Motions #73)
11
Before the court is pro se plaintiff Percy Lavae Bacon’s Motion for A Limited Discovery Order.
12
(#55). Defendants did not file an Opposition.
13
Also before the court is the defendants’ Motion For A Joint Status Conference and Request to
14
Stay Responses to Pending Motions. (#73). The deadline to file a response has not expired.
15
Background
16
On July 10, 2012, plaintiff filed his motion/application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
17
(#1), motion to seek leave of court to serve the “Administrative Claim” without the Nevada Department
18
of Corrections Institutional Grievance Form (#2), motion to use the purchased money order for the fee
19
(#3), motion to seek equitable tolling (#4), motion for temporary restraining order (#5), motion for
20
permanent injunction (#6), and motion for appointment of counsel (#7). The court issued an order
21
denying plaintiff’s pending motions (#1-#7), and dismissing the action without prejudice. (#8). The
22
clerk entered judgment against plaintiff on July 23, 2012. (#9).
23
On August 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to alter/amend clerk’s judgment (#9). (#10). The
24
court entered an order on August 3, 2012, denying the plaintiff’s motion (#10). (#11). On August 30,
25
2012, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from clerk’s judgment (#9). (#12). On September 11, 2012, the
26
1
court issued an order granting the motion for relief (#12) and vacating the order (#8) dismissing the
2
action and the judgment (#9).
3
motion/application to proceed in forma pauperis (#15), a motion for leave to file an overly large § 1983
4
claim (#16), a motion for appointment of counsel (#17), a motion for permanent injunction (#19), and
5
a motion for permanent injunction for the Nevada Department of Corrections to stop purchasing items
6
of food labeled “not for human consumption and no longer allow unlicensed personnel to prepare
7
medically restricted diets” (#20).
(#13).
On September 25, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended
8
On September 28, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for reasonable explanations as to why Judge
9
Navarro recused herself. (#21). On October 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining
10
order (#22) and a motion for permanent injunction (#23). On October 16, 2012, the court issued an
11
order denying the motion for temporary restraining order (#22). (#25). On October 30, 2012, plaintiff
12
filed a motion to alter or amend the court’s order (#25). (#26). Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary
13
restraining order (#27) and a motion for preliminary injunction (#28) on November 7, 2012. On
14
November 8, 2012, the court issued an order denying the motion for temporary restraining order (#27).
15
(#29). On November 19, 2012, the court issued a screening order granting the motion to file overly
16
large complaint (#16), denying the other pending motions (#17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #23, #26, and #28),
17
dismissing several counts and defendants, deferring decision on the in forma pauperis application, and
18
staying the action for 90 days. (#30). On November 19, 2012, the clerk filed the plaintiff’s complaint.
19
(#31).
20
On December 14, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to amend order denying appointment of counsel
21
(#33) and an amended complaint (#34). On December 19, 2012, the court issued an order striking the
22
motion to amend (#33) and the amended complaint (#34). (#35). On December 28, 2012, plaintiff filed
23
a motion for declaratory judgment (#36), which the court struck on January 15, 2013 (#38). On January
24
16, 2013, the court issued an order scheduling an inmate early mediation conference for March 15,
25
2013. (#39). On February 6, 2013, the court issued an order vacating the inmate mediation and stating
26
2
1
that “if the parties are able to settle the case during the 90 day stay, the $350.00 filing fee need not be
2
paid. However, if the parties are unable to settle, then the Court will reconsider the motion to proceed
3
in forma pauperis (IFP), and plaintiff will have to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full...” (#40). On
4
February 19, 2013, the Attorney General’s Office filed a report of the results of the 90-day stay. (#41).
5
On February 26, 2013, plaintiff filed the instant motion to extend prison copywork limit (#42) and
6
motion to prosecute this action without providing defendants a copy of the pro se pleadings (#43). On
7
March 1, 2013, the court issued an order granting the plaintiff’s motion/application to proceed in forma
8
pauperis (#15). (#44).
9
On March 5, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for District Judge to reconsider screening order (#45),
10
a notice of shame and farce (#46), and an amended complaint (#47). Plaintiff filed a motion to formally
11
address a misunderstood claim on March 12, 2013. (#48). On March 15, 2013, defendants filed a
12
response to the motion to extend copy work limit (#49) and a non-opposition to the motion to pursue
13
litigation without providing defendants a copy of the pro se pleadings (#50). Plaintiff filed a motion
14
for summary judgment on the same day. (#51). On March 22, 2013, defendants filed a notice of
15
acceptance of service. (#53).
16
On March 26, 2013, plaintiff filed motions for preliminary injunction (#54), a limited discovery
17
order (#55), an order of admonishment (#56), an order to be allowed to serve summons and complaint
18
(#58), and to supplement amended complaint (#59), a reply in support of his motion to extend prison
19
copy limit (#57), and an amended complaint (#60). On March 29, 2013, defendants filed a response to
20
the plaintiff’s motion to formally address misunderstood claims (#48). (#61). The court issued an order
21
on April 4, 2013, denying without prejudice plaintiff’s motion to extend copywork limit (#42),
22
accepting defendants’ waiver of service (#50), and granting plaintiff’s motion to proceed without
23
serving defendants (#43). (#62).
24
On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (#63), a motion to “clearly
25
establish as a claim that the plaintiff never submitted a “civil action” or a writ of habeas corpus” (#64),
26
3
1
a request for judicial notice (#65), and a motion seeking this Honorable Court to request that the United
2
States Attorney General conduct a formal investigation (#66).
3
On April 8, 2013, the court issued a minute order striking plaintiff’s amended complaint (#60).
4
(#67). On the same day, the defendants filed a motion to stay plaintiff’s dispositive motion or for
5
enlargement of time. (#68). On April 10, 2013, plaintiff filed objections to the court’s order (#62).
6
(#70). On April 12, 2013, the defendants filed a motion (#71) to strike the plaintiff’s motion for
7
preliminary injunction (#54) and the instant motion for a joint status conference (#73). On April 18,
8
2013, plaintiff filed a motion (#75) to strike defendants’ motion to stay (#68), an objection (#76) to the
9
court’s order (#62), an objection (#77) to the court’s minute order (#67), and a response (#78) to the
10
defendants’ motion to stay (#68).
11
Motion For A Limited Discovery Order (#55)
12
A.
Argument
13
Plaintiff’s motion for a limited discovery order asks this court to order defendants to provide
14
plaintiff with the identities of all “meat compan[ies] in which the Nevada Department of Corrections
15
has ordered and or purchased meat products from in the last ten years [so] these compan[ies] can be
16
served a summons and complaint.” (#55). Plaintiff does not indicate that he sought this discovery from
17
defendants before seeking the court’s intervention. Id.
18
B.
Relevant Law/Discussion
19
Pursuant to Local Rule 16-1(b), no discovery plan is required in actions by or on behalf of
20
inmates under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and “a scheduling order shall be entered within thirty (30) days after
21
the first defendant answers or otherwise appears.” “Unless otherwise ordered by the court, written
22
discovery, including responses thereto, and deposition transcripts, shall not be filed with the court.”
23
Local Rule 26-8. Local Rule 26-7(b) provides that “[d]iscovery motions will not be considered unless
24
a statement of the movant is attached thereto certifying that, after personal consultation and sincere
25
effort to do so, the parties have been unable to resolve the matter without Court action.” Pro se
26
4
1
plaintiffs are held to a less stringent standard than those who are represented by counsel. Haines v.
2
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 584 (1972). However, pro se plaintiffs are still required to
3
familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules of this
4
court, and a failure to comply with these rules could warrant sanctions. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d
5
1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986)(holding that pro se parties are not excused from following the rules and
6
orders of the court).
7
Plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed on March 5, 2013 (#47), and defendants first appeared1
8
in this action on March 15, 2013, to file a response (#49) to plaintiff’s motion to extend copywork limit
9
(#42). A notice of acceptance of service was filed on March 22, 2013 (#53). The defendants’ answers
10
are due on or before May 21, 2013. (#53). Discovery has not commenced in this action. After
11
conducting the status conference on May 20, 2013, as ordered below, the court will enter a scheduling
12
order and the parties can begin discovery. Plaintiff is advised that he is not to file discovery requests
13
or responses with the court, and that any motion to compel discovery will not be considered by the court
14
unless plaintiff has made a good faith effort to resolve the issue with the defendants before filing the
15
motion. See LR 16-1(b), 26-7(b), and 26-8; See also Jacobsen 790 F.2d at 1364-65.
16
Motion For Joint Status Conference and Request to Stay Responses to Pending Motions (#73)
17
A.
Arguments
18
Defendants assert in their motion that as of the date of filing, thirty-one (31) motions have been
19
filed in this action, “with the overwhelming majority of them coming from [p]laintiff.” (#73).
20
Defendants state that “counsel has made a valiant effort to respond to [p]laintiff’s papers and pleadings
21
up to this point, but [p]laintiff’s litigation tactics are now creating a hindrance to the litigation process
22
and the just and speedy resolution of this case as well as others with which the Office of the Attorney
23
1
24
25
26
The Attorney General’s Office appeared in this action on December 10, 2013, solely for purposes of
discussing settlement. (#32). On February 19, 2013, the Attorney General’s Office filed the report of the results of the
90-day stay. (#41). This was before the court granted in forma pauperis (#44) and the filing of plaintiff’s amended
complaint (#47).
5
1
General is tasked to defend with limited time and resources.” Id. Defendants ask this court for a joint
2
status conference “to obtain the [c]ourt’s direction in proceeding henceforth and perhaps in protecting
3
[d]efendants from having to respond to papers intended solely to harass and unnecessarily prolong the
4
litigation.” Id.
5
B.
Discussion
6
Plaintiff has filed thirty-six motions in this action. Plaintiff has nine (9) motions currently
7
pending on the court’s docket. (#48, #55, #56, #58, #59, #63, #64, #66, and #75). Plaintiff has also
8
filed three (3) objections to the court’s orders (#70, #76, and #77) and a motion for reconsideration of
9
the court’s screening order (#45). Defendants have three pending motions on the court’s docket,
10
including a motion to stay plaintiff’s dispositive motion (#68), motion to strike plaintiff’s preliminary
11
injunction (#71), and the instant motion for joint status conference and request for stay (#73).
12
As the court stated in its screening order, “[p]laintiff is a frivolous and vexatious litigant.”
13
(#30). The Eighth Judicial District Court declared plaintiff to be a vexatious litigation in Bacon v.
14
Laswell, 238 P.3d 794 (Nev. 2008), and the Nevada Supreme Court warned plaintiff in Bacon v. State,
15
281 P.3d 1152 (Nev. 2009) that his continued frivolous attempts to obtain relief from his judgment of
16
conviction could lead to a loss of credits in. Id. The Nevada Supreme Court eventually restricted
17
plaintiff’s ability to file civil appeals or petitions for original writs. Id; Bacon v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
18
Court, No. 58414 (April 25, 2012).
19
Based on the court’s docket in this action, it appears that plaintiff has continued his vexatious
20
litigation practices. The court’s screening order advising plaintiff that the court was aware of his
21
litigation history (#30) did not deter plaintiff from unnecessarily filing multiple frivolous motions before
22
the court entered a scheduling order or the defendants filed an answer. A status conference is scheduled
23
for May 20, 2013, at 1:00 p.m., to discuss the proceedings with the parties and to hopefully avoid having
24
to enter an order to show cause why plaintiff should not be deemed vexatious and the court should not
25
dismiss the complaint. Briefing on all pending motions (#48, #56, #58, #59, #63, #64, #66, #68, #71,
26
6
1
and #75) is stayed. Briefing is also stayed on any motions filed before the May 20, 2013, status
2
conference.
3
Accordingly, and for good cause shown,
4
IT IS ORDERED that pro se plaintiff Percy Lavae Bacon’s Motion for A Limited Discovery
5
Order (#55) is DENIED. The court will enter a scheduling order after conducting the status conference
6
in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ Motion For A Joint Status Conference and
7
8
Request to Stay Responses to Pending Motions (#73) is GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that a status conference is scheduled for May 20, 2013, at 1:00
9
10
p.m.
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff will appear telephonically.
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Attorney General’s Office will make the necessary
13
arrangements for plaintiff to appear by telephone and, at least two days prior to the hearing, will provide
14
Jerry Ries, Courtroom Administrator, with the telephone number at which the Plaintiff can be reached.
15
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that briefing on all pending motions (#48, #56, #58, #59, #63, #64,
16
#66, #68, #71, and #75) and on any motions filed before the May 20, 2013, status conference is
17
STAYED.
18
DATED this 22nd day of April, 2013.
19
20
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
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.
Why Is My Information Online?