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).

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?