Tagle v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Intervene/Investigate; denying without prejudice 8 Motion to extend prison copywork limit; denying 9 Motion for suggestion of death; denying 10 Motion to be removed from NDOC's Jurisdiction; denying 11 Motion for transportation for personal appearance or, in the alternative, motion to appear telephonically or video conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/19/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

VICTOR TAGLE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NDOC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_________________________________________ )

Case No. 2:15-cv-00623-APG-GWF
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for the Proper Authorities to

15

Investigate/Intervene (#6), filed on April 16, 2015. A Response (#22) was filed by the Defendants

16

on May 4, 2015. Plaintiff’s Reply (#37) was filed on May 13, 2015.

17

This matter is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Prison Copywork Limit

18

(#8), filed on April 16, 2015. A Response (#24) was filed by the Defendants on May 4, 2015.

19

Plaintiff’s Reply (#36) was filed on May 13, 2015.

20
21
22

This matter is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Suggestion of Death (#9), filed
on April 16, 2015. No response was filed.
This matter is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to be Removed from NDOC’s

23

Jurisdiction (#10), filed on April 16, 2015. A Response (#19) was filed by the Defendants on May

24

4, 2015. Plaintiff’s Reply (#34) was filed on May 13, 2015.

25

This matter is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Transportation for Personal

26

Appearance or, in the Alternative, Motion to Appear Telephonically or Video Conference (#11),

27

filed on April 16, 2015. A Response (#20) was filed by the Defendants on May 4, 2015. Plaintiff’s

28

Reply (#38) was filed on May 13, 2015.

1

A.

2

Motion to Investigate
Plaintiff requests that the Court conduct an investigation into the alleged abuses of

3

Defendant NDOC. The Court is not an investigative service; if Plaintiff seeks information to

4

support his claims against the Defendants, he may attempt to obtain that information through the

5

discovery process. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

6

B.

7

Motion to Extend Copywork Limit
Plaintiff requests that the Court extend his copywork limit. He indicates that Defendant

8

NDOC is preventing him from printing materials. NDOC responds that the Plaintiff is $70.10 over

9

his $100.00 limit. The Plaintiff does not have a right to unlimited copy work. Johnson v. Moore,

10

948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991); Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding

11

that “numerous courts have rejected any constitutional right to free and unlimited photocopying”).

12

Plaintiff has not indicated what materials he is lacking, or how much of an extension of the limit he

13

needs. Plaintiff’s motion is denied, without prejudice, so that the Plaintiff may bring a future

14

motion indicating exactly what he needs.

15

C.

Motion for Suggestion of Death

16

Plaintiff wishes to name a successor in interest in the lawsuit in the event of his death. Fed.

17

R. Civ. P. 25 provides for the substitution of a party in the event of the death of an interested party.

18

However, the Court cannot entertain this motion until the party in interest has actually died.

19

Plaintiff’s motion is premature and is denied.

20

D.

21

Motion to be Removed From NDOC’s Jurisdiction
Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of being removed from NDOC’s jurisdiction, and having

22

his illegally deducted money returned to him. Plaintiff’s requested relief is more appropriately

23

sought through a Complaint and not a Motion. Should Plaintiff wish to amend his complaint to

24

seek the requested relief or add additional claims, he may petition the Court for permission to do

25

so. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

26

E.

Motion for Transporation

27

Plaintiff requests that he be transported for a hearing, or, in the alternative, that Plaintiff be

28

allowed to appear via video or telephone at the hearing. There are currently no hearings scheduled
2

1

in this matter; therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is premature. However, should a hearing be scheduled,

2

the Court will make the necessary arrangements for the Plaintiff’s appearance. Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Invervene/Investigate (#6) is

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Prison Copywork Limit
(#8) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Suggestion of Death (#9) is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to be Removed From NDOC’s
Jurisdiction (#10) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Transportation for Personal

12

Appearance or, in the Alternative, Motion to Appear Telephonically or Video Conference (#11) is

13

denied.

14

DATED this 19th day of May, 2015.

15
16
17

GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3