Carrillo v. Gillespie et al

Filing 116

ORDER Denying without prejudice 79 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Additional Copywork and 94 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Legal Supplies Injunction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 10/30/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

GILBERTO CARRILLO,
Plaintiff,

6

Case No. 2:12-cv-02165-JAD-VCF

7

vs.

ORDER

8

DOUGLAS GILLESPIE, et al.,

(Ex Parte Motion for Additional Copywork
#79)

9

Defendants.

(Ex Parte Motion for Legal Supplies
Injunction #94)

10
11
12

Before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Gilberto Carrillo’s Ex Parte Motion for Additional
Copywork (#79)1 and Ex Parte Motion for Legal Supplies Injunction (#94).

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff, who is currently in the Nevada Department of Corrections, filed the present Ex Parte
Motion for Additional Copywork requesting $45.00 to make sufficient copies of documents for
opposing counsel and the Court. (#79). He filed the present Ex Parte Motion for Legal Supplies
Injunction requesting legal supplies “necessary to accommodate the court and discovery requested by
counsels of the defendants.” (#94).

18
19
20
21
22

Ex parte motions are filed with the Court but not served upon the opposing party. LR7-5(a).
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-5(b), “[a]ll ex parte motions, applications or requests shall contain a statement
showing good cause why the matter was submitted to the Court without notice to all parties.” Motions
may be submitted ex parte “only for compelling reasons.” LR 7-5(c). Defendant has not provided the
court with a statement in either motion demonstrating “compelling reasons” why the motions were filed

23
24
25

1

Refers to the Court’s docket number.
1

1

ex parte. Absent a LR7-5(b) statement, the Court will not consider these motions on an ex parte basis.

2

Thus, the Court denies both motions without prejudice.

3

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is pro se and thus should be held to less stringent standards

4

than attorneys, see Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

5

(1972) (per curiam), but the Court will not deny opposing counsel the opportunity to respond to a

6

motion when a party does not provide “compelling reasons” for denying that opportunity.

7

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

8

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Gilberto Carrillo’s Ex Parte Motion for Additional Copywork

9
10

(#79) and Ex Parte Motion for Legal Supplies Injunction (#94) be DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this 30th day of October, 2013.

11
12

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2