Hernandez v. Baker et al

Filing 252

ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF Nos. 224 , 227 , 228 , 229 , 230 , 237 , and 239 Motions for Summary Judgment and Motions in Limine. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/30/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11

INGINIO HERNANDEZ,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00083-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
RENEE BAKER, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

This Court previously denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to

15

count III. (ECF No. 175.) Trial is set on the February 28, 2017, trial stack. (ECF No. 222.)

16

Plaintiff has filed numerous motions which lack merits and will be denied.

17

Plaintiff filed two motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 237, 239), which are

18

denied for the following reasons: (1) the deadline to file dispositive motions has expired;

19

(2) Plaintiff has not sought leave to file successive motions for summary judgment; and

20

(3) Plaintiff’s motions are frivolous in light of the Court’s reason for denying summary

21

judgment in favor of Defendants — that a genuine issue of material fact exists to preclude

22

summary judgment. Plaintiff filed four motions in limine (ECF Nos. 227, 228, 229, 230)

23

that appear to ask for summary judgment in his favor. These motions are denied for the

24

same reasons.

25

Plaintiff filed a motion in limine in which he appears to ask for appointment of

26

counsel (ECF No. 224), however, the Court has denied Plaintiff’s four previous motions

27

for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 206) and Plaintiff has failed to offer a valid reason

28

for the Court to reconsider. While Plaintiff will need a Spanish interpreter because of

1

language barriers, the Court has secured Spanish interpreters for the trial. (ECF No. 247.)

2

Based on Plaintiff’s prosecution of this case, his ability to articulate his claim with the help

3

of an interpreter and the uncomplicated single count that is proceeding to trial, the Court

4

again finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances that justify

5

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 224) will

6

be denied.

7
8
9

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment and motions
in limine (ECF Nos. 224, 227, 228, 229, 230, 237, 239) are denied.
DATED THIS 30th day of January 2017.

10
11

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2