Tagle v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 129

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 119 Plaintiff Victor Tagle's Motion to Opposition to Dismiss of Case is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/8/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

VICTOR TAGLE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-02143-RFB-CWH
ORDER

12
13

Presently before the court is Plaintiff Victor Tagle’s Motion to Opposition to Dismiss of

14

Case (ECF No. 119), filed on October 19, 2017. Defendant Christopher Beecroft filed a response

15

(ECF No. 128) on November 3, 2017.

16

Plaintiff requests that the court deny Defendant’s forthcoming motion to dismiss, arguing

17

that the filing deadline has passed and that Defendant purposely has held the motion to dismiss to

18

delay the case. Defendant responds that the motion should be denied because it is not supported by

19

points and authorities and because the United States district judge assigned to this case ordered

20

Plaintiff to refrain from filing additional motions until the court issues a decision on Defendant’s

21

forthcoming motion to dismiss, unless the motion concerns a health or safety issue.

22

The court extended Defendant’s deadline for filing a motion to dismiss to November 13,

23

2017. (Order (ECF No. 126).) Thus, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion to the extent he requests

24

that the forthcoming motion to dismiss be denied on the grounds that it is untimely. Additionally,

25

Plaintiff was ordered to refrain from filing motions until the court rules on the forthcoming motion

26

to dismiss, unless it concerns his health or safety. (Order (ECF No. 110).) This motion does not

27

concern Plaintiff’s health or safety and therefore should not have been filed. Plaintiff is advised

28

that future failures to comply with the court’s order may result in the imposition of sanctions under

1
2
3

Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or Local Rule IA 11-8.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Victor Tagle’s Motion to Opposition to
Dismiss of Case (ECF No. 119) is DENIED.

4
5

DATED: November 8, 2017

6
7
8

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

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2