Benson v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 54

ORDER that 27 Motion to Strike is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/4/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 THOMAS BENSON, 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 vs. 13 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-0447-RFB-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 27) 16 Pending before the Court is a motion to strike filed by the LVMPD Defendants. Docket No. 27. 17 The motion seeks to strike a notice filed by Plaintiff regarding a purported cease and desist order. See 18 id. at 2. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and the LVMPD Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 19 40, 45. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 20 The Court has authority to strike an improper filing under its inherent power to control its docket. 21 E.g., Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010).1 “Motions to strike under 22 the inherent power . . . are wholly discretionary.” Jones v. Skolnik, 2015 WL 685228, at *2 (D. Nev. 23 Feb. 18, 2015). In deciding whether to exercise that discretion, courts consider whether striking the 24 filing would “further the overall resolution of the action,” and whether the filer has a history of excessive 25 and repetitive filing that have complicated proceedings. Id. Similarly, courts have expressed reluctance 26 1 27 28 The motion in this case relies on Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides bases for striking portions of a “pleading.” The underlying document in this case is not a pleading, so the Court addresses the issue instead to its inherent authority. 1 at striking material without some showing of prejudice to the moving party. Cf. Roadhouse v. Las Vegas 2 Metro. Police Dept., 290 F.R.D. 535, 543 (D. Nev. 2013) (addressing motion to strike brought pursuant 3 to Rule 12(f)). 4 The pending motion seeks to strike the notice filed by Plaintiff, arguing that it is a fake order 5 from an imagined court that is irrelevant to this case. Docket No. 27 at 3. While the LVMPD 6 Defendants may be correct on those fronts, they have not demonstrated circumstances showing that they 7 are prejudiced by the existence of the filing on the docket or that striking the filing would further the 8 overall resolution of the action. Without any explanation of any benefit of striking this filing, the Court 9 declines to exercise its discretion to do so. 10 Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED without prejudice. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: April 4, 2017 13 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?