Hill v. Baca et al

Filing 74

ORDER denying all of Plaintiff's pending motions on the docket ( 48 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 66 , 68 , and 69 ). Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/6/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

CHARLES H. HILL,

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12

Case No. 3:13-cv-00291-RCJ-WGC

ISIDRO BACA, et al.,

13

ORDER

Defendants.

14
15

The court dismissed this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

16

Order (#38). Plaintiff has submitted a motion for relief from judgment (#48). First, he complains

17

about his medications. Plaintiff does not address the court’s reason why it found that counts 1

18

through 6, which are the medication-related counts, fail to state claims upon which relief may be

19

granted: The court already had denied those claims on their merits in another action. Second,

20

plaintiff complains that he is not able to pay for photocopies of 654 pages of documents that

21

defendant Baca will not return to him. Those pages are the complaint, which plaintiff already

22

possesses. There is no need for photocopies. The court denies the motion for relief from judgment

23

(#48) and the associated request to compel an order upon the motion (#51).

24

Plaintiff has submitted three requests for excerpts of the record on appeal pursuant to Circuit

25

Rule 30-3 (#53, #59, #69). The court denies these requests because the court already has sent to

26

plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet, which is what the court has transmitted to the court of appeals.

27
28

1
2
3
4
5

Plaintiff has submitted two requests for production of documents (#54, #62). The court sees
no reason to depart from its denial of the same request that plaintiff made previously. See Order (#44).
Plaintiff has submitted two requests for correction of clerical omission (#57, #60). The court
denies these requests because it has transmitted the docket sheet to the court of appeals.
Finally, plaintiff has submitted another motion for relief from judgment (#63), a request for

6

leave to challenge the court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith (#66), and an

7

application to proceed in forma pauperis (#68). In the motion for relief from judgment, plaintiff

8

argues incorrectly that the court required him to pay the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

9

and that the court failed to take into account that plaintiff is in danger of imminent physical injury or

10

death. The court did not deny plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (#1); the court

11

granted the application when it dismissed the action. The court also certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the dismissal of the action would not be taken in good faith

13

because the complaint was plainly without merit. Nothing in the motion for relief from judgment

14

(#63) or in the challenge to the court’s certification (#66) would cause the court to depart from the

15

ruling that the appeal is not taken in good faith. The court denies the motions and application to

16

proceed in forma pauperis (#68).

17
18
19

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all of plaintiff’s pending motions on the docket (#48,
#51, #53, #54, #57, #59, #60, #62, #63, #66, #68, #69) are DENIED.
Dated:

June 6, 2014

20
21

_________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-