Hernandez v. Baker et al

Filing 62

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 4/30/2014, denying 56 Motion. (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
April 30, 2014

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 Doc. # 56, filed as a "notice" by the Clerk's Office in the docket. The
actual title of the filing is "This Motion be Brought Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 Pursuant to Rule of
Civil Procedure Civ. P. 13. And also Moreover. In Addition for Addressing to Court Order of
Motion (#51)."
The court finds this motion to be essentially indecipherable. In one respect, it appears to
reflect an attempt by Plaintiff to prosecute a grievance before this court which is inappropriate. See,
Minutes of Proceedings, Doc. # 50 at pp. 2-3:
The court also notes that by filing a complaint in federal court and
then to use it as a forum to air unrelated grievances is not an
appropriate approach to remedy [Plaintiff's] complaints. Plaintiff is
advised the proper remedy is to utilize the NDOC grievance system,
and if the complaints remain unsolved, he may choose to file a new
action.
To the extent Plaintiff's motion is a complaint about copy work or legal supplies (Doc. # 56
at 3-5), the court has also previously addressed the copy issues at the March 14, 2014 hearing. (Doc.
#50 at 3-4.) Additionally, the Defendants have submitted a report, as the court requested, outlining
the legal sup\plies and copy work which are available to the Plaintiff. (Doc. # 53.) The court finds
any shortcomings with respect to Plaintiff's legal supplies or copy work were caused by Plaintiff's
failure to follow the appropriate NDOC protocols.

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:13-cv-00083-MMD-WGC
Date: April 30, 2014
Page 2
Plaintiff's alleged inability to secure copy work or legal supplies is also due in no small
measure to Plaintiff's propensity to file multiple motions on the same or related subject. (Doc. # 50
at 4.) Plaintiff is once again cautioned that his filing should not exceed allowable limits. Plaintiff
should also consider more concisely setting forth his arguments, using "plain English." Attempts to
employ antiquated or inappropriate "legalisms" only detract from his arguments.
To the extent Plaintiff attempts to seek any relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13, (Doc. # 56 at 4-5),
the court has previously addressed this contention as well. Rule 13 addresses counterclaims and cross
claims, neither of which pertain to Plaintiff's action.
Because of the multiple references in this Order to the Minutes of Proceedings of March 15,
2014 (Doc. # 50), the Clerk is directed to also send a copy of Doc. # 50 to Plaintiff.
To the extent Doc. # 56 constitutes a motion, any relief sought therein is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk