Rimer v. State of Nevada ex rel Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 191

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 150 Motion for Order to Produce Medical Records, Denying 156 Motion to Annex Court Records, Denying as moot 157 Motion to Extend Time re Admissions of Discovery, Denying 158 Motion for an Order to Allow Tooth X-Rays, Denying 168 Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants, Denying as moot 169 Motion for Return of Documents 153 and 164 , Denying as moot 170 Motion for Acknowledgment of Service, Denying 177 Motion for Reconsideration of document 134 , Denying [ 179 Motion for Reconsideration of document 165 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 7/20/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
12
13
14
15
16

STANLEY RIMER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA EX REL NEVADA
)
DEPARTMENT IF CORRECTIONS, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH
ORDER

17

Before this Court are Plaintiff’s motions (docs. # 150, # 156, # 157, # 158, # 168, # 169, # 170,

18

# 177, # 179), and Defendants’ responses (docs. # 171, # 180, # 181, # 182, # 185, # 186, # 187,

19

# 188). Plaintiff did not file replies.

20

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of

22

Corrections (“NDOC”) and currently incarcerated at the Lovelock Correctional Center. On July 21,

23

2014, the Court entered a screening order finding that plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to support his

24

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and First Amendment claim

25

for retaliation. See Doc. # 9. The Court’s screening order also imposed a 90-day stay to allow the

26

parties to participate in mediation. Id.; see also Doc. # 12. On December 4, 2014, the State Attorney

27

General (“AG”) filed a status report indicating that settlement was not reached and that it intended to

28

proceed with this action. See Doc. # 17. The Court subsequently issued orders governing service in

1

the instant case. See Doc. # 18; Doc. # 60.

2
3

DISCUSSION
1.

Motion for Order to Produce Medical Records (doc. # 150)

4

Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order requiring the Clark County Detention Center

5

(“CCDC”) to produce and send Plaintiff’s medical and dental records to the Lovelock Correctional

6

Center where Plaintiff is incarcerated.

7

Defendants, in response, ask the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion as meritless because Plaintiff

8

does not assert that he has attempted to obtain the records by subpoena pursuant to Rule 45 of the

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), and the discovery period is set to close in the instant case.

10

Plaintiff did not file a reply.
This Court agrees with Defendants and therefore denies the instant motion.

11
12

2.

Motion to Annex Court Records (doc. # 156)

13

Plaintiff moves the Court to “annex” exhibits filed in connection with Defendants’ petition for

14

removal “into the general record as a separate compilation of exhibits” because “he has no ability to

15

recreate the exhibits due to obstruction of copy access” and to prevent “some sort of argument later

16

of some rule hidden deep in the layer of rules unbeknown to Plaintiff.” Doc. # 156 at 2-3.

17

Defendants, in response, ask the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion as an improper attempt to

18

elicit legal advice from Defendants or the Court, and because Plaintiff fails to offer any authority in

19

support of his motion. Defendants further point out that Plaintiff fails to show an increase in his copy

20

debt limit is warranted. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

21

The Court finds no viable basis to “annex” exhibits to Defendants’ petition for removal. If

22

Plaintiff wishes to refer to these exhibits in a pleading, he may do so by citing the docket numbers and

23

page numbers of these exhibits. Thus, the instant motion is denied.

24

3.

Motion to Extend Time re: Admissions of Discovery (doc. # 157)

25

Plaintiff moves the Court to extend discovery by “3-6 months or until Plaintiff amends his

26

complaint” so he can “construct” additional requests for admission. Plaintiff states that additional time

27

is necessary because he has not yet received responses to his interrogatories.

28

Defendants, in response, claim they have recently mailed Plaintiff the interrogatory responses
2

1

of Defendant Nash and are diligently working on the responses of Defendant Dreesen. Defendants

2

also ask the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion because Plaintiff’s stated intent to serve Defendants with

3

8 extra sets of requests (i.e., sets 2-10 cited in Plaintiff’s motion), for a total of ten separate sets of

4

requests, is “excessive and goes well beyond what is reasonable in a relatively straightforward inmate

5

civil rights action of this type.” Doc. # 182 at 2. Defendants add that Plaintiff’s motion appears to be

6

a means for annoying or harassing Defendants, especially when considered in light of Plaintiff’s

7

excessive filings in this case. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

8

A review of the record reveals that this Court previously granted Defendants’ motion to

9

respond to Plaintiff’s already-served and future interrogatories thirty dates after the Court rules on

10

Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss (doc. # 35). See Doc. # 183. As such, the Court denies the

11

instant motion as moot.

12

4.

Motion for an Order to Allow Tooth X-Rays (doc. # 158)

13

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order allowing him, or requiring the NDOC, to send his

14

tooth x-ray to an outside dentist of his choice for a second opinion as to whether the tooth can be

15

repaired.

16

In response, Defendants ask the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion as meritless because Plaintiff

17

fails to cite any authority in support of his motion and fails to explain how he will pay for the second

18

opinion given his indigent status, especially since the state has no obligation to finance or support

19

prisoner litigation pursuant to Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 384-85 (1996). Plaintiff did not file a

20

reply.

21
22

This Court agrees with Defendants and therefore denies the instant motion.
5.

Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants (doc. # 168)

23

Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order extending the time for Plaintiff to serve his requests

24

for admissions, claiming the time is needed because he inadvertently sent his requests of admission

25

to the Court instead of serving them on Defendants. Plaintiff notes that he spoke to defense counsel

26

on May 21, 2015 and that defense counsel indicated that Defendants “wanted service [of the requests

27

of admission] through the mail.”

28

Defendants, in opposition, contend that the instant motion should be denied because discovery

3

1

is now closed and the record reveals that Plaintiff was on notice that discovery documents could not

2

be filed with the Court since March 15, 2015. See Doc. # 185 at 3 (citing doc. # 53 (scheduling order

3

states all discovery must be completed by June 7, 2015) and doc. # 63 (discovery documents

4

improperly sent to the Court were returned to Plaintiff)). Defendants add that while they were able

5

to access the requests for admission at issue on the record, Plaintiff himself admits that defense counsel

6

contacted Plaintiff as a courtesy shortly after Plaintiff improperly filed his requests for admission, with

7

defense counsel informing Plaintiff, among others, that Defendants would not waive the service

8

requirement. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

9
10

This Court again agrees with Defendants and denies the instant motion.
6.

Motion for Return of docs. # 153 and # 164 (doc. # 169)
Because the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve Defendants with the

11
12

requests for admission at issue, this Court denies the instant motion as moot.

13

7.

Motion for Acknowledgment of Service (doc. # 170)

14

Moreover, in light of this Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve the

15

requests for admission, the instant motion to order Defendants to accept service for these requests for

16

admission is denied as moot.

17

8.

Motion for Reconsideration of Order # 134 (doc. # 177)

18

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider denial of his discovery motions, claiming the Court’s

19

denial “demonstrate[s] judicial bias and prejudice,” obstructs justice, and infringes on fairness and his

20

“liberty interests in conducting discovery.” Doc. # 177 at 3-7. Plaintiff adds that he has provided the

21

requisite legal foundation and support for each of his motions, which requires this Court to grant his

22

motions.

23

Defendants, in response, contend that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that reconsideration is

24

warranted because neither the U.S. Constitution, nor federal law, entitles Plaintiff to engage in

25

discovery that is not authorized by the FRCP. According to Defendants, this Court has already

26

determined that many of Plaintiff’s discovery motions were meritless and unfairly monopolized the

27

resources of Defendants and the Court. Defendants further contend that Plaintiff offers no persuasive

28

argument that this Court abused its discretion or overlooked any controlling authority in denying his
4

1

motions. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

2

A review of the instant motion reveals that Plaintiff restates many of the arguments he already

3

presented in the discovery motions at issue. These assertions were unsupported by law and/or the

4

federal rules, and therefore denied on those bases. The fact that Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s

5

decision, but fails to present a legitimate basis for this Court to reconsider its decision, does not entitle

6

Plaintiff to relief. See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985); Merozoite v. Thorp,

7

52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995); Khan v. Fasano, 194 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001). As

8

such, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

9

9.

10
11

Motion for Reconsideration of Order # 165 (doc. # 179)
In his motion, Plaintiff again attacks the integrity of the Court, then launches into a lengthy

argument as to why he believes the Court erred in denying his motions.

12

Like his previous motion for reconsideration, the instant motion restates many of the arguments

13

Plaintiff presented in the discovery motions at issue. Because these motions were unsupported by law

14

and/or the federal rules, this Court denied the motions and now finds no viable basis to reconsider its

15

decision.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Produce
Medical Records (doc. # 150) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Annex Court Records (doc. # 156)
is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time re: Admissions of
Discovery (doc. # 157) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Allow Tooth X-Rays
(doc. # 158) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants
(doc. # 168) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Return of docs. # 153 and # 164
(doc. # 169) is denied as moot.
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Acknowledgment of Service (doc.
# 170) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of doc. # 134 (doc.
# 177) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of doc. # 165 (doc.
# 179) is denied.
DATED: July 20, 2015

8
9
10

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6