Pattison v. The State of Nevada, Ex Rel, Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 134

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 6/2/2015, denying 131 motion for reconsideration and granting in part 133 Motion to Extend Time. Reply re 128 motion to compel due 6/24/2015. No further extensions shall be granted. Please see attached for further details. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

DANTE PATTISON,

3:14-cv-00020-MMD-VPC

Plaintiff,
MINUTES OF THE COURT
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.

PRESENT:

June 2, 2015

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court are plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (#131) and motion for
enlargement of time (#133).
First, plaintiff moves the court to reverse its prior denials of his petitions to proceed in
forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s motions were not accompanied by an inmate trust account statement.
(See #130.) Although plaintiff may have attached such statements when he filed this action in
state court prior to its removal, a grant of IFP status in this court requires a current inmate trust
account statement. The court’s ruling was not in error. The motion (#131) is DENIED.
The court also wishes to inform plaintiff that IFP status, at this juncture, is of no benefit
to him. Defendants removed this action from state court and thus they, rather than he, paid the
filing fee. (See #1.) The only benefit to inmate plaintiffs from in forma pauperis status, beyond
the modified fee schedule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is service of defendants through the United States
Marshal Service. There are no outstanding defendants who require service. Therefore, IFP
status provides no benefit to plaintiff, and further motion practice around the issue is simply
dilatory.
Second, the motion to enlarge (#133) is GRANTED IN PART. The court understands
that plaintiff is involved in state court litigation that commands his attention in the next several

days. Accordingly, plaintiff shall have until Wednesday, June 24, 2015 to file a reply to
defendants’ opposition to his motion to compel. No further extensions shall be granted.
Finally, the court reminds plaintiff that his opposition to defendants’ summary judgment
motion is due on Monday, July 6, 2015. As described in the court’s prior order (#130), no
further extensions shall be granted. Plaintiff is advised to manage his time carefully so that he
may timely file briefs on both motions. In light of the pending discovery motion, plaintiff is
instructed, to the extent he believes that his opposition requires documents have been allegedly
withheld by defendants in violation of applicable discovery rules, to describe the documents in
his opposition and support his contention with an affidavit as Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure requires.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk