Hernandez v. Baker et al

Filing 19

ORDER Application to proceed IFP 1 is GRANTED. Monthly payments due until filing fee paid in full (copy of order sent via NEF to finance and via USPS to Chief of Inmate Services). Clerk shall electronically serve copy of this order a nd copy of amended complaint 11 on AG's Office (service completed 10/22/13). Within 21 days, AG's Office shall advise Court as to acceptance of service (see attached for details). Answer due in 60 days for represented defendants. Plaintiff to serve defendants copies of all pleadings. Motions 9 , 14 , 15 , and 16 are DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 10/22/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 INGINIO HERNANDEZ, 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 RENEE BAKER, et al., 13 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / 3:13-cv-00083-MMD-WGC ORDER 14 15 This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a state 16 prisoner. On July 12, 2013, the Court entered an order screening the amended complaint and 17 imposing a ninety-day stay in this action. (ECF No. 10). The ninety-day stay was intended to allow 18 the parties an opportunity to settle their dispute. The Court’s order specified that during the ninety- 19 day stay, no pleadings or papers shall be filed and the parties shall not engage in discovery. (ECF 20 No. 10, at p. 11). Despite the order of this Court, plaintiff has filed a motion for injunctive relief, a 21 motion for an order to show cause, a motion to amend, and a motion to compel the production of 22 documents. (ECF Nos. 9, 14, 15, 16). These motions are denied as prohibited by the Court’s order 23 of July 12, 2013. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff’s motions are denied without prejudice to plaintiff 24 bringing appropriate motions later during the litigation of this action. 25 26 The Office of the Attorney General has filed a status report indicating that settlement was not reached and informing the Court of its intent to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 18). 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 3 Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial installment of the filing fee. In the 4 event that this action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid pursuant to 5 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 6 2. The movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the 7 necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of security 8 therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to 9 the issuance of subpoenas at government expense. 10 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), the Nevada Department of Corrections shall pay 11 to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the 12 preceding month’s deposits to plaintiff’s account (Inginio Hernandez, #59072), in 13 the months that the account exceeds $10.00, until the full $350.00 filing fee has been 14 paid for this action. The Clerk of the Court shall SEND a copy of this order to the 15 Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk shall also SEND a copy of this 16 order to the attention of the Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of 17 Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 18 4. The Clerk shall electronically SERVE a copy of this order and a copy of plaintiff’s 19 amended complaint (ECF No. 11) on the Office of the Attorney General of the State 20 of Nevada, attention Kat Howe. 21 5. Subject to the findings of the screening order (ECF No. 10), within twenty-one (21) 22 days of the date of entry of this order, the Attorney General’s Office shall file a notice 23 advising the Court and plaintiff of: (a) the names of the defendants for whom it 24 accepts service; (b) the names of the defendants for whom it does not accept service, 25 and (c) the names of the defendants for whom it is filing last-known-address 26 information under seal. As to any of the named defendants for which the Attorney 2 1 General’s Office cannot accept service, the Office shall file, under seal, the last 2 known address(es) of those defendant(s) for whom it has such information. 3 6. If service cannot be accepted for any of the named defendant(s), plaintiff shall file a 4 motion identifying the unserved defendant(s), requesting issuance of a summons, and 5 specifying a full name and address for the defendant(s). For the defendant(s) as to 6 which the Attorney General has not provided last-known-address information, 7 plaintiff shall provide the full name and address for the defendant(s). 8 7. 9 defendant(s) shall file and serve an answer or other response to the amended 10 11 If the Attorney General accepts service of process for any named defendant(s), such complaint within sixty (60) days from the date of this order. 8. Henceforth, plaintiff shall serve upon defendant(s) or, if an appearance has been 12 entered by counsel, upon their attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion or other 13 document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the 14 original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct 15 copy of the document was mailed to the defendants or counsel for the defendants. If 16 counsel has entered a notice of appearance, the plaintiff shall direct service to the 17 individual attorney named in the notice of appearance, at the address stated therein. 18 The Court may disregard any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge 19 which has not been filed with the Clerk, and any paper received by a district judge, 20 magistrate judge, or the Clerk which fails to include a certificate showing proper 21 service. 22 23 9. Plaintiff’s motions at ECF Nos. 9, 14, 15, and 16 are DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 22nd day of October, 2013. 24 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 3

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?