Hendrix v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying 56 Motion for copies. Denying as moot 60 Motion for Discovery. Granting 62 , 63 Motions for submission to the extent this Order is entered deciding all pending Motions. Granting 64 Motion to Extend Time to respond to Plaintiff's written discovery request to no later than January 21, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 1/12/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JAMAL DAMON HENDRIX,

8

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

9
10

Case No. 2:13-cv-02003-RFB-PAL

(Mtn for Copies – Dkt. #56)
(Mtn for Discovery – Dkt. #60)
(Mtns for Submission – Dkt. ##62, 63)
(Mtn for Extn of Time – Dkt. #64)

JAMES G. COX, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Jamal Damon Hendrix’s Motion to Extend

13

Copywork (Dkt. #56), Motion to Engage in Discovery (Dkt. #60), and Motions for Submission

14

(Dkt. ##62, 63), and Defendants Linda C. Adams’, Isidro Baca’s, Robert Bannister’s, Jay

15

Barth’s, Julia Calderin’s, Amy Calderwood’s, James “Greg” Cox’s, Roland Daniels’,

16

Christopher Day’s, Frank Dreeson’s, Michael Fletcher’s, Sheryl Foster’s, Terrel Gregory’s, Don

17

Helling’s, Jerry Howell’s, Cory Leavitt’s, E.K. McDaniel’s, Cole Morrow’s, Jennifer Nash’s,

18

Dwight Neven’s, Lee Werlinger’s, and Harold Wickham’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to

19

Serve Discovery Responses (Dkt. #64). The court has considered the Motions, and the various

20

Responses (Dkt. ##59, 61).

21

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. On January

22

27, 2014, the court entered an Order (Dkt. #3) screening Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. #4) pursuant

23

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

24

I.

25

Plaintiff seeks an Order directing the Clerk of Court to issue summons to Defendants

26

Morrow, Helling, Jones, Kyles, and Chang. He asks the court to serve these Defendants “at their

27

current addresses of employment and residence which the City of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police

Motion for Summons (Dkt. #54).

28
1

1

Department [“LVMPD”] has as well as the Department of Motor Vehicle [“DMV”] has on

2

record and the Department of Labor [“DOL”] has also.” Motion at 3:12-16.

3

In an Order (Dkt. #44) entered August 15, 2014, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to issue

4

summons and direct the U.S. Marshal’s Service to serve these Defendants and Defendant

5

Skolnik. The Clerk of Court issued Summons, and the USMS attempted service. See Summons

6

(Dkt. #45); Returns of Service (Dkt. ##46, 48, 50, 51, 52). Defendants Morrow and Helling

7

were successfully served with process. See Returns of Service (Dkt. ##46, 48). The USMS was

8

unable to serve Defendants Kyles,1 Jones,2 Skolnik,3 and Chang.4 See Returns of Service (Dkt.

9

##47, 50, 51, 52). Plaintiff was advised by the court that if he wanted to have service attempted

10

again, he would need to provide the court with a more detailed name and/or address or request

11

another manner of service. Plaintiff has not done so, and his request is denied.
II.

12

Motion for Copies (Dkt. #56).
Plaintiff seeks an order allowing him permission to exceed the $100 limit on copy work

13
14

imposed on inmates in the Nevada Department of Correction (“NDOC”).

15

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not specified why he needs additional copy work, but they do

16

not oppose a moderate increase in copy work in the amount of ten dollars. Generally, an inmate

17

has no constitutional right to free photocopying. See Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th

18

Cir. 1991). The statute providing authority to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does

19

not include the right to obtain court documents without payment. Id. “The granting of an

20

application to proceed in forma pauperis does not waive the applicant=s responsibility to pay

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In response,

1

  The Return of Service indicates the USMS attempted to serve Kyles on three occasions. There
was no record of Kyles’ employment at the last known employment address, and he did not
reside at his last known residential address.
2
The Return of Service indicates the USMS attempted to serve Jones on two occasions, and he
no longer worked at his last known place of employment, or resided at his last known residential
address.
3
The Return of Service indicates the USMS attempted to serve Skolnik on two occasions, and he
no longer worked at his last known place of employment, or resided at his last known residential
address.
4
The Return of Service indicates the USMS attempted to serve Chang on one occasion, and he
no longer worked at his last known place of employment.

2

1

expenses of litigation which not covered by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915.” LSR 1-8. Additionally, courts

2

in other jurisdictions have not permitted plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis to receive free

3

copies of documents from the court without the plaintiff demonstrating a specific showing of

4

need. See, e.g., Collins v. Goord, 438 F.Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Guinn v. Hoecker, 43

5

F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994) (no right to free copy of any document in record unless plaintiff

6

demonstrates specific need); In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526 (6th Cir. 1990) (28 U.S.C. § 1915

7

does not give litigant right to have documents copied at government expense); Douglas v. Green,

8

327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964) (no free copy of court orders).

9

Here, Plaintiff has not stated any specific reason that he needs additional copies.

10

Furthermore, his request for additional copy work has already been denied twice by the district

11

judge in this case (Dkt. ##8, 28) because Plaintiff’s received additional copy work in another

12

matter pending in this court as Hendrix v. State of Nevada, 2:13-cv-01527-JAD-CWH. For both

13

of these reasons, the Motion for Copies is denied.

14

III.

Motion for Discovery (Dkt. #60).

15

Plaintiff seeks an order allowing him to conduct discovery. The court entered a Scheduling

16

Order (Dkt. #58) on October 20, 2014. Plaintiff has been permitted to conduct discovery since

17

that time. Discovery closes January 15, 2015, and dispositive motions are due February 16,

18

2015. This request is denied as moot.

19

IV.

Motion to Enlarge Time to Serve Discovery Responses (Dkt. #64).

20

Defendants seek an order granting them an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s

21

discovery requests until January 16, 2015.

Plaintiff served written discovery requests on

22

Defendants, and their responses were due December 29, 2014. Defense counsel represents that

23

many of the Defendants were out of town and unable to submit their answers to counsel. In

24

addition, defense counsel is out of the country until January 12, 2015.

25

Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may extend the time

26

for a party to act for good cause if the extension is requested prior to the expiration of the

27

deadline. The court finds defense counsel has stated good cause for this modest extension of the

28

///
3

1

deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and Defendants may have until January 16,

2

2015, to respond.
V.

3

Plaintiff’s Motions for Submission (Dkt. ##62, 63).

4

Plaintiff filed two Motions for Submission, each requesting that Motions Plaintiff filed be

5

submitted to the court for consideration. When a motion is filed with the court, it is submitted

6

for the court’s consideration. Motions are ordinarily decided in the order which they are filed

7

unless the court is required to give priority to a case by statute, rule of law, or because the matter

8

is an emergency. No other or further request needs to be made. Making repeated requests for

9

the same relief only slows the court down by it something else which must be reviewed,

10

considered, and put on schedule for decision. In short, it taxes the resources of the court and of

11

all the parties to this lawsuit. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that

12

sanctions may be imposed on an unrepresented party who signs a paper that is either filed with

13

the court for an improper purpose or is frivolous. See Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas

14

& Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 439 (9th Cir. 1992, cert. denied, 508 U.S. 908 (1993) (citing

15

Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.3d 1358. 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc)). In

16

Nugget, the Ninth Circuit upheld the trial court’s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions because a

17

party’s second motion to compel largely duplicated the first. Plaintiff is warned that continued

18

motion practice requesting relief that has already been requested may result in the imposition of

19

sanctions.

20

For the reasons set forth above,

21

IT IS ORDERED:

22

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies (Dkt. #56) is DENIED.

23

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (Dkt. #60) is DENIED AS MOOT.

24

3. Plaintiff’s Motions for Submission (Dkt. ##62, 63 are GRANTED to the extent this
62)
Order is entered deciding all pending Motions.

25
26

///

27

///

28

///
4

1
2
3

4. Defendants’ Motion for Extension (Dkt. #64) is GRANTED. Defendants shall respond to
Plaintiff’s written discovery requests no later than January 21, 2015.
Dated this 12th day of January, 2015.

4
5
6

PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5