Tagle v. Neven et al

Filing 22

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 20 Motion for Case Information. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/9/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

VICTOR MANUEL TAGLE,

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

Case No. 2:15-cv-00214-GMN-PAL

WARDEN NEVEN, et al.,

13

ORDER

Respondents.

14
15
16
17

Before the Court is petitioner’s motion styled as a motion for case information (ECF No.
20).
On September 22, 2016, the Court filed and entered a judgment of dismissal. Per

18

established procedure, the notices of electronic filing were distributed electronically to the librarian

19

of the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC). On October 5, 2016, a notice was filed

20

reflecting that the “inmate refused delivery” of the notices of filing.

21

In the pending motion, petitioner takes issue with, among other matters, being “represented”

22

by the NNCC librarian and with having to sign for receipt of court legal mail before seeing it.

23

The court developed an electronic-filing program with the law library at the Northern

24

Nevada Correctional Center. The program reduces the photocopying expenses that inmates incur

25

when serving documents upon defendants and also reduces the time it takes for a prisoner’s

26

outgoing filings to be seen by the court and any other served parties. Moreover, the program

27

reduces the time it takes for court legal mail to reach prisoners—assuming that they sign for the mail

28

once received at the prison.

1

Petitioner’s concern that he is being “represented” by the institution and/or librarian is

2

unfounded. The NNCC librarian is listed in the represented by or counsel section of the docket

3

sheet solely because that placement on the docket sheet is necessary to enable the electronic

4

docketing system to send notices of electronic filing to the NNCC law library. The NNCC librarian

5

is not representing petitioner. Nor are the respondents in this action or his custodians representing

6

him.

7

If petitioner wishes to receive his legal mail, he must sign for it. That holds true both for

8

physical mailings sent from the Court to other prison law libraries and for notices of electronic filing

9

sent from the Court to the NNCC law librarian. Either way, the inmate must sign for his mail. If he

10

refuses to sign for his mail and his time for taking action expire, he has no basis for relief in that

11

regard.

12

The foregoing is not a procedure as to which petitioner can opt either in or out. Court

13

mailings to prisoners at NNCC are sent electronically to the prison law librarian. Prisoners must

14

sign for their mail if they wish to see it. If they refuse to sign for it, all applicable delays continue to

15

run notwithstanding their refusal to sign for the mail.

16
17
18
19
20

Petitioner presents further queries and argument about other cases. This order addresses
only this action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for case information (ECF No. 20)
is DENIED.
November 9, 2017
DATED: November 9, 2016

21
22

_________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-