Brooks v. Walsh et al

Filing 97

ORDER denying 94 Motion for Injunction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/2/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

SHANE BROOKS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LISA WALSH, et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No. 2:14-cv-00497-APG-CWH

ORDER

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 94), filed on

11

October 13, 2016. Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 96) on October 27, 2016. Plaintiff did not

12

file a reply.

13

Plaintiff requests an emergency injunction requiring that the Northern Nevada Correctional

14

Center (NNCC) process his legal mail in a timely and proper manner. The basis of this request is

15

Plaintiff’s assertion that NNCC failed to mail out two documents drafted by Plaintiff. Specifically,

16

Plaintiff identifies two documents (“brass slip” #2222856 and #2101843) that he believes were not

17

mailed out as he requested. However, Plaintiff does not identify what these documents were, nor

18

does he specifically assert that the documents were intended to be filed in this case. Plaintiff

19

acknowledges that he is litigating several ongoing cases. Plaintiff does request that he be allowed an

20

extension to file a reply in support of his motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 86).

21

However, Plaintiff already filed a reply to that motion (ECF No. 88), which was received and

22

docketed by the court on July 12, 2016. Plaintiff does not suggest that there is any other filing in this

23

case that he intended to make but that was not filed. Plaintiff has therefore not made clear to the

24

court what documents, if any, are missing from this case.

25

Further, Defendants provide evidence that brass slip #2222856 and #2101843 were in fact

26

mailed out in a timely manner. (ECF No. 96, Exhibit A). The court finds no evidence that any

27

documents in this case have been improperly handled.

28

1

1
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunction relief (ECF No. 94) is
DENIED.

3
4

DATED: December 2, 2016.

5
6

_________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
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

2