Harden v. High Desert State Prison et al

Filing 157

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 84 , 86 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 138 , 143 , and 148 are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 139 Plaintiff's motion to correct an incomplete document is GRANTED. The Clerk shall attach the p ages of 139 marked as "Exhibit A" to 130 .IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 136 Defendant's motion to strike 136 is GRANTED. The Clerk shall strike Plaintiff's objection. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/2/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

HAROLD D. HARDEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No. 2:15-cv-01168-RFB-CWH

ORDER

Presently before the court are eleven of pro se Plaintiff Harold D. Harden’s motions (ECF

11

Nos. 84, 86, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 138, 139, 143, and 148). Also before the court is Defendant’s motion

12

to strike (ECF No. 136), filed on September 27, 2016.

13

Plaintiff filed several motions to amend his complaint (ECF Nos. 84, 86, 90, 91, and 93)

14

between June 23 and July 18, 2016. Per the original scheduling order (ECF No. 30) in this case, all

15

amendments to pleadings were due no later than April 16, 2016, and any extension to that deadline

16

would require a showing of both good cause and excusable neglect. Here, the court does not find

17

good cause to extend the deadline to amend the complaint. Therefore, the court will deny these

18

motions.

19

Plaintiff also filed two motions to strike (ECF Nos. 92 and 94) on July 18, 2016 and July 21,

20

2016, respectively. Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendant’s responses to motions (ECF Nos. 84 and 86)

21

filed by Plaintiff. The court is authorized to strike from a pleading any redundant, immaterial,

22

impertinent, or scandalous matter. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(f). However, the court finds no such

23

material in Defendant’s responses. The court will therefore deny these motions.

24

Plaintiff also filed two motions for the magistrate judge to reconsider an order (ECF Nos. 138

25

and 148) on September 30, 2016 and October 5, 2016, respectively. In both motions, Plaintiff

26

requests reconsideration of the court’s order (ECF No. 133) denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

27

file supplemental documents with the court. Under Local Rule 59-1, motions for reconsideration are

28

1

1

disfavored. However, the court possesses the inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders when

2

there is newly discovered evidence not available at the time the motion was originally filed, when the

3

court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or when there is an

4

intervening change in controlling law. Upon review, the court finds none of these conditions apply

5

to Defendant’s motions to reconsider. The motions will therefore be denied.

6

Plaintiff also filed a motion to correct an error on the docket (ECF No. 143) on September

7

30, 2016. Plaintiff moves to correct a typographical error made by the clerk’s office when it

8

docketed ECF No. 132. On October 3, 2016, the clerk’s office corrected the typographical record.

9

Plaintiff’s motion will therefore be denied as moot.

10

Plaintiff also filed a motion to correct an incomplete document (ECF No. 139) on September

11

30, 2016. Plaintiff represents that due to mishandling or errors beyond his control, his motion for

12

leave to supplement (ECF No. 130) was filed incompletely. In order to correct this error, Plaintiff

13

requests that the pages of ECF No. 139 marked as “Exhibit A” be attached to ECF No. 130. Upon

14

review, the court will grant this motion.

15

Finally, before the court is Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 136), filed on September

16

27, 2016. Defendant requests that Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 127) to Defendant’s reply (ECF

17

No. 121) in support of its motion for summary judgment be stricken as an impermissible surreply. A

18

surreply is an additional reply to a motion that has already been fully briefed. Defendant’s objection

19

was filed in response to a motion for summary judgment that had already been fully briefed. Under

20

Local Rule 7-2, surreplies are discouraged and not permitted without leave of the court. Defendant

21

did not seek leave of the court to file his surreply, therefore Defendant’s motion to strike will be

22

granted.

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

2

1
2
3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that ECF Nos. 84, 86, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 138, 143, and 148
are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to correct an incomplete document (ECF

4

No. 139) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall attach the pages of ECF No. 139 marked as “Exhibit A” to

5

ECF No. 130.

6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 136) is
GRANTED. The Clerk shall strike Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 127).

8
9

DATED: November 2, 2016.

10
11

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

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

3