Rimer v. Sandoval et al

Filing 91

ORDER that 73 Motion to Strike re 70 Plaintiff's Judicial NOTICE is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 74 Motion to Strike re 71 Plaintiff's Judicial NOTICE is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 79 Motion for Government Intervention is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/28/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

STANLEY RIMER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01440-JCM-GWF
ORDER

12
13

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike (#73), filed on April 2,

14

2015. Plaintiff did not file a response to this Motion. This matter is also before the Court on

15

Defendants’ Motion to Strike (#74), filed on April 2, 2015. Plaintiff’s Opposition (#76) to

16

Defendants’ Motion was filed on April 20, 2015. Defendants’ Reply (#78) to Plaintiff’s

17

Opposition was filed on April 28, 2015. This matter is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion

18

for Government Intervention (#79), filed on April 29, 2015.

19

Defendants seek to strike Plaintiff’s Judicial Notice filings (#70, #71). In #70, the Plaintiff

20

asks 18 questions of law of the Court. In #71, Plaintiff requests that the Court take Judicial Notice

21

of the Defendants’ allegedly unconstitutional conduct, and asks an additional four questions of law

22

regarding “Prospective Relief.” In civil matters, it is the burden of the Plaintiff to identify the

23

issues in dispute, present the supporting law, and request the appropriate relief of the Court. It is

24

not the obligation of the Court to answer legal questions posed by the parties. Therefore, the

25

Plaintiff’s Judicial Notice filings (#70, #71) are not proper.

26

Plaintiff’s Motion for Government Intervention (#79) requests that the United States

27

Attorney, the Department of Justice, and the Inspector General intervene in the Plaintiff’s case in

28

order to investigate the Plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff alleges that these organizations have the

1

right to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Plaintiff claims that the intervention is

2

relevant to allow him to gather evidence or documentation that demonstrate that the holdings

3

Plaintiff listed in his Judicial Notice filings (#70, #71) are binding.

4

FRCP 24 is designed to let parties that wish to intervene in a case in which those parties

5

have an interest to do so. The Rule is not designed to require parties to enter a case for the purpose

6

of conducting an investigation. The instant action has not yet proceeded to the discovery stage, but

7

upon doing so, the Plaintiff will have the opportunity to request relevant evidence and

8

documentation that may support his case. Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Strike (#73) is granted.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Strike (#74) is granted.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Government Intervention

12
13

(#79) is denied.
DATED this 28th day of May, 2015.

14
15
16

GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

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