Reed v. Nevada Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 87

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 5/14/2015, denying as moot Plaintiff's 84 Motion - Status Check on Pending Motions; denying Plaintiff's 85 Motion for Copies; warning Plaintiff that filing groundless and duplicative motions may lead to sanctions. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

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 1, 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 motions (#s 84/85).
First, the court has ruled or entered recommended dispositions on the pending motions
that plaintiff identifies. These have been or will be delivered to him via the U.S. Postal Service.
Therefore, the motion (#84) is DENIED as moot.
Second, the court shall not order the Clerk to provide plaintiff copies of his filings.
Plaintiff is obviously capable of retaining a copy of papers he files, and defendants must serve
upon him a copy of their motions and papers. It is not the court’s obligation to provide
additional copies to a litigant who misplaces documents, even when the litigant is indigent. If
plaintiff desires new copies of any papers, he may submit a copy request form to the Clerk
stating the specific documents he would like copied along with the appropriate fee, or request the
same from ESP officials as permitted by applicable prison policies. The motion for copies (#85)
is DENIED.
Finally, plaintiff is advised that his habit of filing new motions that are, in substance,
identical to motions he has already filed, and/or filing motions seeking “updates” or immediate
action on pending motions will not increase the speed with which the court is able to proceed in
this case. The court has a heavy docket. Plaintiff’s case is just one of hundreds before the court.

Thus, plaintiff’s repetitive (and borderline frivolous) filings only slow the pace of this litigation
by requiring the court’s attention and consideration of small and secondary matters instead of the
central issues in this case.
The court has been lenient because plaintiff is a pro se party. However, this does not
give plaintiff a blank check to clutter the docket. See Schenker v. Rowley, No. 3:12-cv-00174LRH-VPC, 2013 WL 321688, at *3-4, 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