Hernandez v. Baker et al

Filing 177

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 3/7/2016, granting in part 174 Motion. Defendants shall send to Plaintiff copy of his objections 168 and shall insure that ESP Law Library and/or Inmate Accounting is made aware of copy work extension granted in 169 Order. To the extent Plaintiff's motion may be interpreted as seeking additional copy work extension, request is denied. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

INGINIO HERNANDEZ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
________________________________________)

3:13-cv-00083-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
March 7, 2016

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 motion requesting that the court order the Defendants to return
to Plaintiff his Objections (ECF No. 168) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 174.) Plaintiff also states the order granting him a $10.00 copy work extension has “been
denied by the DOC facility.” (Id. at 3.)
On January 5, 2016, the court granted Plaintiff’s earlier motion (ECF No. 167) wherein he
sought the court to return his only copy of his objections. The order also granted Plaintiff a copy
work extension of $10.00. (ECF No. 169.) In Plaintiff’s instant motion, he states that when he
received the copy of his objections from the court on January 8, 2016, he used that copy to serve
upon the defendants on January 13, 2016, and now does not have a copy of it. (ECF No. 174 at 4.)
Plaintiff’s writing style is difficult to discern, but it now appears that the court may have
misunderstood Plaintiff’s earlier motion (ECF No. 172) wherein Plaintiff asked for an extension of
time and a copy of the “motion” he sent to counsel on January 18th. Plaintiff’s request for an
extension of time was denied as moot. The court further noted further that there were no outstanding
motions or responses to which a response or reply was due, and directed Defendants to send a copy
of Plaintiff’s notice entitled Exhibit “L” (ECF No. 171) to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 173.)
The court notes Exhibit L attached a Copy Work Request by Plaintiff wherein he was denied
the ability to copy 89 pages because he was over his copywork limit. Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No.
168, consisted of approximately 90 pages. The court now interprets Plaintiff’s motion that he was
trying to copy his lengthy objections in order to serve them on the Defendants. Since he sent his only
copy to Defendants, Plaintiff is now asking the court to order Defendants to return his objections to
him. (ECF No. 174.)

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:13-cv-00083-MMD-WGC
Date: March 7, 2016
Page 2
Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 174) is granted in part. Defendants shall send to Plaintiff a
copy of his objections (ECF No. 168). Counsel for Defendants shall insure that the Ely State Prison
Law Library and/or Inmate Accounting is made aware of the copywork extension granted to Plaintiff
in ECF No. 169. To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion may be interpreted as seeking an additional
copy work extension, that request is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk