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
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?