Tagle v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 126

ORDER denying 95 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 113 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 6/6/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Victor Tagle, Sr.,

5

2:15-cv-01402-JAD-VCF

Plaintiff

6

v.

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and Denying the
Defendants’ Motion to Strike.

7

State of Nevada, et al.,

[ECF Nos. 95, 113]

8

Defendants

9
Nevada state prisoner Victor Tagle sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil-rights violations

10
11

that allegedly took place during his incarceration at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) and Ely

12

State Prison.1 In screening Tagle’s complaint, I found that he stated colorable claims for first

13

amendment retaliation against HDSP assistant Warden Nash, supervisory liability for excessive

14

force against HDSP Lt. Bean, and excessive force against HDSP guard Wing and HDSP Lt.

15

Oliver.2
Tagle now moves for summary judgment on his claims, arguing that the defendants and

16
17

their attorneys committed bad acts during the course of this proceeding that entitle him to

18

judgment as a matter of law.3 Six days after filing his summary-judgment motion, Tagle filed a

19

“response” to it explaining that he did not know what summary judgment meant when he filed

20

that motion and asking me to NOT summarily adjudicate his claims.4 The defendants oppose

21

Tagle’s motion and move to strike his response.5 I treat Tagle’s response as a supplement to his

22

motion.

23
24
1

25

ECF No. 1-1 at 1–5.

2

ECF No. 2.

27

3

ECF No. 95 at 1.

28

4

ECF No. 98.

5

ECF Nos. 106 (response), 113 (motion).

26

1

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and admissible evidence show that

2

“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

3

matter of law.”6 If the moving party satisfies Rule 56 by demonstrating the absence of any

4

genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the party resisting summary judgment to “set

5

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”7

6

Tagle vaguely insinuates in his summary-judgment motion that defendants and their

7

attorneys committed bad acts during this case like bribery, forgery, and personally insulting him

8

in court filings. Tagle provides no evidence of these bad acts, appears to point the court to a

9

document that he filed in this case,8 does not tie the alleged bad acts to his claims in this case,

10

and does not identify any authority supporting his request for summary judgment on this basis.

11

He also appears to retract his summary-judgment motion in the response that he filed to that

12

motion.9 Even if I do not interpret Tagle’s “response” as a request to withdraw his motion, it is

13

clear that Tagle has not discharged his burden under FRCP 56.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Tagle’s motion for summary judgment

15

[ECF No. 95] is DENIED and the defendants’ motion to strike [ECF No. 113] is DENIED as

16

moot.

17

DATED: June 6, 2017

18
_______________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24

6

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986) (citing FED. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).

25

7

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986).

26

8

27
28

See ECF No. 95 at 1 (claiming that defendants made ad hominem attacks against him at
“documn No 44, page 4, lines 12-13”; ECF No. 44 is an errata that Tagle himself filed).
9

ECF. No 98.
2