Cave v. O'Brinkley et al

Filing 55

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 54 objection, which the Court construes as a motion for extension of time and a motion for recusal of the undersigned, is GRANTED as to the request for an extension of time and DENIED as to the request f or the undersigned's recusal. The parties must file a joint proposed discovery plan no later than May 10, 2021. Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/26/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10

CHRIS CAVE,

Case No. 2:20-cv-00413-APG-NJK

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

[Docket No. 54]

KENNETH MEAD, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration/objection to the

13 undersigned’s order instructing the parties to file a joint proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 54.
14 Plaintiff appears to seek an extension of time to file a joint proposed discovery plan and again
15 requests recusal of the undersigned. 1 See id. at 1–4.
16
17

I.

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time
On November 19, 2020, the Court granted a motion to stay discovery filed by Defendants

18 Brinkley and Mead (“Defendants”) pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Docket
19 No. 38; see also Docket No. 10 (motion to dismiss). The Court further ordered the parties to file
20 a joint proposed discovery plan within 14 days of the issuance of the order resolving Defendants’
21 motion. Docket No. 38 at 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was resolved on March 15, 2021.
22 Docket No. 51. The parties, however, failed to file a joint proposed discovery plan. See Docket.
23 Accordingly, on April 19, 2021, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint proposed discovery
24 plan no later than April 23, 2021. Docket No. 53. Although difficult to follow, it appears that
25

1

The undersigned liberally construes Plaintiff’s document as a motion for extension of
26 time and a motion for recusal. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (stating courts
liberally construe pro se filings). Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court’s Local Rules require him to
27 file separate documents for each type of relief requested. See LR IC 2-2(b); see also Ghazali v.
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor,
28 pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure”).
1

1 Plaintiff did not receive the Court’s order instructing the parties to file a joint proposed discovery
2 plan until April 23, 2021. Docket No. 54 at 1–2. In light of Plaintiff’s proffered difficulties, the
3 Court will grant his request for an extension of time.
4

II.

5

Plaintiff’s request for the undersigned’s recusal
On August 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of second manual entry, which the undersigned

6 construed as a motion for recusal. Docket Nos. 26, 36. The allegations in Plaintiff’s request for
7 recusal appeared to arise out of the undersigned’s purported improper conduct in an unrelated case.
8 See Docket No. 26 at 2–3. Specifically, Plaintiff appeared to allege, with no basis in fact, that the
9 undersigned conferred in the Court’s library with a party in an unrelated case and asked about
10 Plaintiff’s union card. See id. Based on these baseless and outlandish allegations, the undersigned
11 denied Plaintiff’s request for recusal on October 29, 2020. Docket No. 36. Plaintiff’s instant
12 request for recusal reiterates the same baseless and outlandish allegations. Compare Docket No.
13 26, with Docket No. 54. Thus, the undersigned again finds that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to show
14 that the undersigned’s actions “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make
15 fair judgment impossible” in this case. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
16 III.

Conclusion

17

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection, which the Court construes as a motion for extension of

18 time and a motion for recusal of the undersigned, is GRANTED as to the request for an extension
19 of time and DENIED as to the request for the undersigned’s recusal. Docket No. 54. The parties
20 must file a joint proposed discovery plan no later than May 10, 2021. Failure to comply with this
21 order may result in sanctions.
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: April 26, 2021
______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2