Rowe v. Clark County School District et al

Filing 119

ORDER that 104 and 105 Defendants' Motions to Strike are GRANTED. The Clerk shall STRIKE 102 Plaintiff Michael Rowe's Amended Motion to Compel a Dismissal Hearing and 103] Letter to Your Honor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM) Modified on 6/26/2017 to link to correct motions (MMM).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8
9
10
11

MICHAEL ROWE,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00661-JCM-PAL

Plaintiff,

ORDER

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et
al.,

(Mots. to Strike – ECF No. 104, 105)

Defendants.

12

This matter is before the court on Defendants Clark County School District and Clark

13

County School District Police Department’s: Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to

14

Compel a Dismissal Hearing [Doc. 102] (ECF No. 104) and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Letter to

15

Your Honor [Doc. 103] (ECF No. 105). These Motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant

16

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice. The court has

17

considered the Motions, Plaintiff Michael Rowe’s Response (ECF No. 111), and the Joinders (ECF

18

Nos. 108, 108) of Defendant Clark County Education Association.

19

“It is well established that district courts have inherent power to control their docket.”

20

Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). This includes the power

21

to strike improperly filed items from the docket. Id. at 404–05; Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546

22

F.3d 580, 586–87, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). Such power is indispensable to the court’s ability to enforce

23

its orders, manage its docket, and regulate insubordinate litigant conduct. Adobe Sys. Inc. v.

24

Christenson, 891 F. Supp. 2d 1194, 1201 (D. Nev. 2012).

25

Additionally, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that sanctions may

26

be imposed on an unrepresented party who signs a paper that is either filed with the court for an

27

improper purpose or is frivolous. See Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 981

28

F.2d 429, 439 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding Rule 11 sanctions because a party’s second motion to
1

1

compel largely duplicated the first) (citing Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.3d 1358,

2

1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc)). Once a motion is filed, filing a duplicate motion will not speed

3

up the court’s review of a movant’s request since motions are generally addressed in the order

4

which they were filed. To the contrary, filing duplicate motions increases the court’s workload

5

and generally delays decision while a new round of responses and reply deadlines run.

6

Defendants’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 104) points out that Mr. Rowe’s Amended Motion

7

to Compel a Dismissal Hearing (ECF No. 102) contains a duplicative request for relief. Local

8

Rule 7-2 allows a motion, a response, and a reply. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

9

Local Rules of Practice do not provide for a “surreply” (i.e., a second opposition) or a supplemental

10

filing (i.e., an “amended motion”) as a matter of right. See LR 7-2(g) (“A party may not file

11

supplemental pleadings, briefs, authorities, or evidence without leave of court granted for good

12

cause.”). Rowe’s Amended Motion was filed without leave of the court and in violation of the

13

Local Rules. The court will not permit Mr. Rowe to circumvent the rules in a never ending attempt

14

to have the last word or to enhance his filings. Thus, the Amended Motion will be stricken.

15

Defendants’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 105) asks the court to strike a letter addressed to

16

“Your Honor” in which Mr. Rowe discusses the filing of an amended motion to compel “dismissal

17

arbitration.” This court has previously explained to him that “letters to the court . . . are not motions

18

authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of Practice.” Mar. 27, 2017

19

Order (ECF No. 96). Thus, the court explicitly informed him that he is not permitted to send his

20

judges case-related correspondence such as letters.

21

communications with the court must be styled as a motion, stipulation, or notice”). Accordingly,

22

the court will grant Defendants’ motion and strike the letter.

See LR IA 7-1(b) (stating that “all

23

Litigation misconduct includes the filing of procedurally improper documents. The court

24

cautions Mr. Rowe that filing multiple motions requesting the same relief is an abusive litigation

25

tactic that taxes the resources of the court and all of the parties to this lawsuit. Rowe is warned

26

that continued filing of letters, requesting relief that has already been denied, or the same relief in

27

pending motions, or making frivolous, unsupported requests may result in the imposition of

28

sanctions, including dismissal of this case.
2

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED:

3

1. Defendants’ Motions to Strike (ECF No. 104) and (ECF No. 105) are GRANTED.

4

2. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to STRIKE Plaintiff Michael Rowe’s Amended

5

Motion to Compel a Dismissal Hearing (ECF No. 102) and Letter to Your Honor (ECF

6

No. 103).

7

Dated this 23rd day of June, 2017.

8
9
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3