Pattison v. The State of Nevada, Ex Rel, Nevada Department of Corrections et al
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 11/18/2014, granting Defendants' 56 Motion to Strike 50 and 51 motions (Plaintiff may re-file one motion limited to 30 pages or less); denying Plaintiff's 60 Cross-Motion to Strike; granting Plaintiff's 49 Motion to Extend Prison Legal Copy Credit, in the amount of $10.00. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR) Modified on 11/18/2014 to indicate copy of order mailed to NDOC Chief of Inmate Services (KR).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al., )
MINUTES OF THE COURT
November 18, 2014
THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORTER: NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
In September 2014, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to exceed the page limit to file a
sixty-one page motion for summary judgment together with 283 pages of exhibits (#45). The
court ordered plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment stricken, but granted plaintiff leave to
refile his motion which shall be limited to thirty pages or less pursuant to Local Rule 7-4. Id.
Rather than reduce the size of his motion to thirty pages, plaintiff split his sixty-one page
motion into two motions, one thirty-one pages in length (#50) and another twenty-nine pages in
length (#51). The motions refer to one another and plaintiff asks the court to consider the
motions in conjunction with one another.
Defendants have moved to strike plaintiff’s two separate motions for summary judgment
(#56) due to plaintiff’s willful defiance of the court’s order to reduce the size of his motion.
Plaintiff filed an opposition and a cross-motion to strike the defendants’ motion to strike
The court finds that plaintiff has willfully defied the court’s order (#45) requiring him to
reduce the size of his motion for summary judgment to thirty pages or less pursuant to Local
Rule 7-4. Therefore, defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s two motions for summary judgment
(#s 50 & 51) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (#s 50 & 51) are hereby
STRICKEN. Plaintiff may refile one motion which shall be limited to thirty pages or less
pursuant to Local Rule 7-4. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order the court may impose
appropriate sanctions pursuant to Local Rule IA 4-1, and the court will sua sponte strike any
future motions for summary judgment if they exceed the page limit set forth in this order.
Plaintiff’s cross-motion to STRIKE (#60) is DENIED.
Also before this court is plaintiff’s motion to extend his legal copy work credit (#49) in
the amount of an additional $172.00. Defendants filed a limited opposition (#53), and plaintiff
replied (#54). The amount of paper plaintiff has filed in this case in the last sixty days alone
contradicts plaintiff’s need for additional legal copy work credit (476 pages - #s 44, 47, 48, 49,
50, 51, 54, 58, 59 & 60) . Moreover, plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Northern Nevada
Correctional Center which has instituted an electronic filing system with the District of Nevada.
Because of this program, plaintiff’s need for copies will now be substantially reduced or
eliminated because plaintiff will be retaining his original documents submitted for filing, and a
copy will be electronically submitted to opposing counsel and the court. See Nevada Department
of Corrections AR 723.
Nevertheless, the court will GRANT plaintiff a one-time opportunity to exceed his
photocopy limit in the amount of $10.00. The additional $10.00 shall be added to plaintiff’s
prison account to be paid when plaintiff has funds available. The court cautions plaintiff that he
should carefully consider the documents he intends to copy as the court will not allow plaintiff to
exceed the copy limit by more than $10.00 under any circumstance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
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?