Jackson v. Doe et al

Filing 140

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 8/6/2013, denying/denying as moot 136 Motion for Order of Contempt. Clerk to mail Plaintiff another copy of Pretrial Order 127 (mailed 8/6/13). Hearing scheduled for Friday, 8/8/2013, is VACATED. Please see attached for further details. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ALFONSO JACKSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN DOE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

3:10-cv-00771-LRH-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
August 6, 2013

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is Plaintiff's "Emergency Motion Requesting the Court to Enter an Order
of Contempt Against Defendants and NDOC for Failure to Comply with Court Orders #122, # 126
and # 132." (Doc. 136). Defendants have responded and oppose plaintiff's motion. (Doc. # 139).
The gravamen of Plaintiff's motion is that NDOC (and not necessarily the Defendants herein)
have allegedly failed to comply with certain court orders granting Plaintiff an extension of his
copywork account. However, as Defendants note in their response, the documents Plaintiff himself
submits with his motion (Exhibits A & B to Doc. # 136) explain that Plaintiff has had available to
him the sum of $19.50 for copywork and that there is no limit for supplies (Exhibit. A to Doc. #
136). While there may have been some confusion as to case numbers, Exhibit B clarifies the amount
of the extension, i.e., $19.50. In fact, the legal copywork amount was again increased by $15.00 by
reason of this court's order of April 8, 2013 (Doc. # 132), thereby raising the total copywork
available to Plaintiff to $34.50. (Footnote 3, Doc. # 139). (The discrepancy between the $19.50
amount referred to in NDOC's responses to Plaintiff's "kites," Exhibits A & B, is likely explained
by the delay in processing the court's $15.00 extension which was entered on April 8. The two
NDOC responses re the amount of the copywork funds are dated April 8 and April 12, 2013). The
Declaration accompanying Defendants' response, Doc. # 139-1, indicates Plaintiff Jackson since
April 11, 2013, has not made any requests for any legal supplies or legal photocopies (id. at para 11).
Therefore, there is no basis for Plaintiff's motion for contempt for failure to comply with certain
court orders regarding copywork and Plaintiff's motion, # 136 is DENIED.

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:10-cv-00771-LRH-WGC
Date: August 6, 2013
Page 2
Plaintiff's motion also complains that former Deputy Attorney General Hagen never sent
Plaintiff a copy of the Pretrial Order (Doc. 136 at 1; Exhibit C). Irrespective of whether Plaintiff was
provided a copy of the Pretrial Order, the record reflects that Plaintiff Jackson signed the proposed
Pretrial Order when it was submitted (Doc. # 125 at 10). Subsequent to Judge Hicks approving the
Pretrial Order (Doc. # 127), the court's docket sheet reflects a copy was mailed to Plaintiff at the Ely
State Prison (Doc. # 127). Therefore, while Mr. Hagen may or may not have mailed Plaintiff a copy
of the Joint Pretrial Order, the court clerk did so. Therefore, there is no necessity for the court to
order Defendants' counsel to send Plaintiff another copy of the Pretrial Order and this component
of Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot. However, out of an abundance of caution, the clerk is
directed to mail Plaintiff Jackson another copy of the Pretrial Order (Doc. # 127).
The hearing on Plaintiff's motion scheduled for Friday, August 8, 2013, is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk