Marshall v. Suey et al

Filing 35

ORDER Denying 27 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Prison Copywork Limit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 3/18/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11

GEORGE MARSHALL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAPTAIN R. SUEY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01710-LDG-PAL
ORDER
(Mtn to Extend Copywork - Dkt. #27)

12
13
14

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff George Marshall’s second Motion to Extend Prison
Copywork Limit (Dkt. #27). The court has considered the Motion.

15

BACKGROUND

16

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. On April 5, 2013, the court approved Plaintiff’s

17

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. #1), and after Plaintiff made an initial partial filing fee,

18

the court screened Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. #4), found he stated a claim for violation of his

19

Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Defendants in their official

20

capacities, and directed service by the U.S. Marshal’s Service (“USMS”) on Defendants. The Clerk of

21

Court issued Summons (Dkt. #8) on October 22, 2013. The USMS effected service on Defendants

22

Suey, Siciliane, Flippe, Davis, Loumakis, Murphy, and Varner. See Summons Returned Executed (Dkt.

23

##9-15). These Defendants filed an Answer (Dkt. #16) on December 11, 2013. Most recently, the

24

court entered an Order allowing Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint. The court screened the

25

Second Amended Complaint and found Plaintiff stated a Fourteenth Amendment claim for lack of

26

outdoor exercise, a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, and a First

27

Amendment retaliation claim.

28

///

1
2

DISCUSSION
On March 17, 2014, the court entered an Order (Dkt. #29) on Plaintiff’s first Motion to Extend

3

Prison Copywork Limit (Dkt. #19). This second Motion requests identical relief. He states he has

4

exceeded the $100.00 Administrative Regulation limit for copies and needs additional copywork

5

services to litigate “this habeas action.” Filing duplicative requests for the same relief is improper.

6

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that sanctions may be imposed on an attorney

7

or an unrepresented party who signs a paper that is either filed with the court for an improper purpose or

8

is frivolous. See Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 439 (9th Cir.

9

1992, cert. denied, 508 U.S. 908 (1993) (citing Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.3d 1358.

10

1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc)). In Nugget, the Ninth Circuit upheld the trial court’s imposition of Rule

11

11 sanctions because a party’s second motion to compel largely duplicated the first. The Ninth Circuit

12

upheld the district court’s order imposing sanctions after finding the second motion was filed for the

13

improper purpose of harassing the other side. Plaintiff is warned that continued motion practice

14

requesting relief that has already been denied or making frivolous, unsupported requests may result in

15

sanctions.

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Prison Copywork Limit (Dkt. #27) is

18
19

DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of March, 2014.

20
21
22
23

_________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2