Tagle v. Anderson et al

Filing 130

ORDER denying 86 Motion; ORDER denying 87 Motion; ORDER denying 100 Motion; ORDER granting 103 Motion to Extend Time; ORDER denying 121 Motion; Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 2/22/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

VICTOR TAGLE,

8

Case No. 2:16-cv-00757-JCM-PAL
Plaintiff,

v.

9

ORDER

MICHAEL ANDERSON, et al.,

10

(Mots. – ECF Nos. 86, 87, 100, 103, 121)
Defendants.

11
12

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Victor Tagle’s Motion to be Removed from

13

Facilities (ECF No. 86), Motion to Demand Discovery (ECF No. 87), Motion for Audio (ECF

14

No. 100), Motion for Investigation and Authorities Intervention (ECF No. 121), and defendants’

15

Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Demand for Audio (ECF No. 103). These

16

motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the

17

Local Rules of Practice. The court has considered the motions and responses (ECF Nos. 107, 108,

18

112, 124). No reply briefs were filed and the deadline for doing so has expired.

19

Having reviewed and considered the matter, the court finds that Mr. Tagle’s motions lack

20

merit. In addition, some are clearly duplicative of previously denied requests.1 This court has

21

repeatedly warned Mr. Tagle against this abusive litigation tactic:

22

Mr. Tagle is indeed required to follow the rules and may be sanctioned for engaging
in abusive litigation practices. Sanctions for litigation misconduct, up to and
including dispositive (case ending) sanctions may be imposed. Tagle’s filings to
date are largely frivolous and demonstrate a disregard for the Federal Rules of Civil

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

E.g., Aug. 17, 2018 Order (ECF No. 81) (denying Tagle’s motions (ECF Nos. 51, 54, 64, 77) regarding
transfer to federal facilities and motions (ECF Nos. 49, 51, 54 56, 58, 66, 72, 76) regarding discovery);
Tagle v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 2:15-cv-02506-APG-VCF, Oct. 9, 2018 Order (ECF No. 86) (denying
Tagle’s motion to move him to the Clary County Detention Center or federal facilities and motions for
intervention and investigation of his case); Tagle v. State of Nevada, 2:15-cv-00216-JCM-PAL, Oct. 27,
2016 Order (ECF No. 105) (denying Tagle’s motion to remove him from NDOC’s custody and place him
in federal custody).

1

1
2
3
4
5

Procedure, the Local Rules of Practice, and prior orders of the court. His multiple
filings have wasted the resources of the court, the NDOC defendants, and their
counsel. Mr. Tagle is therefore explicitly warned that any subsequent motion
practice requesting relief that has already been denied or making frivolous,
unsupported requests may result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including
a recommendation that this case be dismissed.
Aug. 2018 Order (ECF No. 81) at 9 (denying Tagle’s 11 frivolous motions).

6

For the reasons stated in the court’s prior order,

7

IT IS ORDERED:

8

1. Plaintiff Victor Tagle’s Motion to be Removed from Facilities (ECF No. 86), Motion

9

to Demand Discovery (ECF No. 87), Motion for Audio (ECF No. 100), and Motion for

10

Investigation and Authorities Intervention (ECF No. 121) are DENIED.

11

2. Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 103) is GRANTED.

12

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2019.

13
14
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2