Tagle v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 70

ORDER granting 58 Motion to Strike; ORDER granting 60 Motion to Strike; Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 3/26/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

VICTOR TAGLE,
6

Plaintiff,
2:15-cv-02082-JCM-VCF
ORDER

7
8
9

vs.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

MOTIONS TO STRIKE [ECF NOS. 58, 60]

Defendants.

10
11

Before the Court are Defendants, Venus Fajota, Anthony Ritz, Jenice Salazar, and Larry Weus’

12

motions to strike documents filed by Plaintiff Victor Tagle. (ECF Nos. 58, 60). For the reasons discussed

13

below, Defendants’ motions to strike are granted.

14

Tagle has filed an “answer” and “affidavit” containing personal attacks on Defense counsel, prison

15

employees, and Court officials. (ECF Nos. 57, 59). Defendants move to strike these documents as they

16

are (1) fugitive documents and (2) serve no purpose but to harass, unnecessarily delay the proceedings,

17

and needlessly increase the cost of litigation. (ECF Nos. 58, 60).

18

“It is well established that ‘[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their docket,’” including

19

the authority “to strike items from the docket as a sanction for litigation conduct.” Ready Transp., Inc. v.

20

AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules,

21

Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.1998)).

22

of striking filings that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Tagle v. Bean, No. 2:15-

23

CV-01402-JAD-VCF, 2017 WL 2192969, at *3 (D. Nev. May 18, 2017).

“[D]istrict courts follow a long standing practice

24
25
1

1

Tagle’s “answer” and “affidavit” are not proper filings permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil

2

Procedure or Local Rules, such as a complaint, motion, response, or reply. These documents serve no

3

purpose in the case, and therefore ECF Nos. 57 and 59 shall be stricken.

4

The Court must also caution Tagle regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b): “By

5

presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper…an attorney or unrepresented party

6

certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief…it is not being presented for

7

any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of

8

litigation.” “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b)

9

has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). The Court is not

10

contemplating sanctions at this time. However, should Tagle continue to file fugitive documents that

11

appear to be presented solely to harass Defense counsel and other individuals, the Court may consider

12

sanctions in the future.

13

Accordingly,

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to strike (ECF Nos. 58, 60) are

15

GRANTED. ECF Nos. 57 and 59 are hereby stricken.

16
17
18

NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and

19

recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

20

of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal

21

may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified

22

time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections

23

within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the

24

right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court.

25
2

1
2

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452,
454 (9th Cir. 1983).

3

Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the Plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of

4

any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party of the

5

party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this Rule may result in dismissal of the action.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
7

DATED this 26th day of March, 2019.
8

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3