Reed v. Nevada Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 128

ORDER - Motions (ECF Nos. 114 , 122 ) are hereby DENIED. The motions to supplement (ECF Nos. 109 , 125 ) are GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Motion (ECF No. 115 ) is DENIED. The motions for declaratory judgment (ECF Nos. 116 / 117 ) are DENIED. The mo tion for clarification (ECF No. 118 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is warned that his status as an indigent litigant will not dissuade the court from considering sanctions against him for filing groundless and duplicative motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 5/20/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

MAX REED, II,

3:14-cv-00313-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,
MINUTES OF THE COURT

v.
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
PRESENT:

May 20, 2016

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 several motions: #s 109, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 122, and 125.
Plaintiff moved for a “status check” on his motions for a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) and preliminary injunctive relief on February 10, 2016 (#114) and March 11, 2016
(#122). In light of this court’s report and recommendation that plaintiff’s motions be denied
(#127), issued on April 27, 2016, the “status check” motions have been mooted. As such, the
motions (#114, 122) are hereby DENIED.
Prior to the issuance of the April 27 report and recommendation, plaintiff also moved to
supplement (#s 109, 125) the motions for a TRO and preliminary injunctive relief. The
substance of those motions was discussed during the motion hearing on April 19, 2016, and
considered by the court in its report and recommendation. (See #127 at 3 n.2.) Therefore, the
court GRANTS the motions to supplement (#s 109, 125) nunc pro tunc.
On February 10, 2016, plaintiff moved to request clarification and/or assistance with
discovery materials (#115). Plaintiff contends that he requested defendants produce his NDOC
phone call history, to be produced on a “flash drive.” (#115 at 1.) Defendants produced the
requested materials on twenty-five CD-ROMs, accompanied by a hard copy document listing the
date, time, and location of the phone calls. (Id. at 1–2.) As the CD-ROM format will “cause

undue delay” in plaintiff’s review of the calls, plaintiff seeks from the court an order directing
defendants to re-produce the discovery on a flash drive and with a universal adaptor. (Id. at 3.)
Defendants argue that such an order would be unproductive given that inmates are not permitted
to access or use flash drives, and inappropriate in light of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(iii), which
does not require a party to produce electronically stored information in more than one form.
(#120 at 1–2.) Under the circumstances, the court agrees that defendants have met their burden
of production. Whatever the inconvenience of CD-ROMs they are a format “reasonably usable”
to plaintiff, as required by Rule 34. The flash drives, which plaintiff could not review at all, fall
short of that threshold. Accordingly, the motion (#115) is DENIED.
On February 11 (#116) and February 12, 2016 (#117) plaintiff moved for declaratory
judgment, seeking statements from the court regarding his constitutional right to access his
media evidence while in NDOC custody (#116 at 2); his Sixth Amendment right to selfrepresentation in pursuit of his post-conviction writ of habeas corpus; and his Sixth Amendment
right to access his trial transcripts and media evidence for use in accessing the courts (#117 at 2.)
Plaintiff’s motions are improper. Declaratory relief is properly sought through a pleading, 28
U.S.C. § 2001, such as a complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P 7(a), and not in a motion. Indeed, plaintiff’s
amended complaint already seeks declaratory relief. (#31 at 33.) Further, supposing plaintiff’s
motion was intended as a motion for summary judgment, he failed to set forth the relevant legal
standards or evidence to demonstrate that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). Accordingly, the motions for declaratory judgment (#s 116/117) are DENIED.
On February 22, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking clarification as to the court’s
notice pursuant to Local Rule IB 2-2 (#118). The court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion, and
advises plaintiff that if he consents to have the case referred to a magistrate, and if defendants
also consent, Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke will conduct all proceedings including trial, the
entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings.
Finally, given the sizable docket that has accumulated in this case, the court finds it
appropriate to advise plaintiff that his habit of filing new motions that are, in substance, identical
to motions he has already filed, and/or filling motions seeking updates on pending motions, will
not increase the speed with which the court is able to proceed. The court has a heavy docket.
Plaintiff’s case is just one of hundreds before the court. Thus, such filings only slow the pace of
litigation by requiring the court’s attention on secondary matters instead of the central issues in
this case. The court is mindful that plaintiff is a pro se party and has, therefore, construed
plaintiff’s filings with leniency. Nevertheless, this does not give plaintiff a blank check. See
Schenker v. Rowley, No. 3:12-cv-00174-LRH-VPC, 2013 WL 321688, at *3, 5–6 (D. Nev. Jan.
28, 2013). Plaintiff is warned that his status as an indigent litigant will not dissuade the court
from considering sanctions against him for filing groundless and duplicative motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk