Espinosa v. Bannister et al

Filing 103

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 4/5/2016, denying as moot 68 motion for waiver of service upon defendants; granting in part 70 motion for reconsideration for additional copywor k; allowing plaintiff to exceed copy limit in amount of $10 to be paid when plaintiff has funds available (copy mailed to NDOC); denying 99 motion for appointment of counsel; and cautioning Plaintiff re filing groundless and duplicative motions. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BENJAMIN ESPINOSA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT BANNISTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )
PRESENT:

3:14-CV-0668-RCJ (VPC)
MINUTES OF THE COURT
April 5, 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:
Plaintiff’s motion for waiver of service upon defendants (#68) is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff is currently housed at Lovelock Correctional Center. E-filing is mandatory for civil
rights cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada by inmates at Lovelock
Correctional Center. Therefore, plaintiff does not need to seek this court’s order to serve defense
counsel by electronic filing as such is standard procedure for those prisons utilizing e-filing.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (#70) for additional copywork credit is GRANTED
in part. The court will allow plaintiff to again exceed his photocopy limit in the additional
amount of $10.00 in this case. 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 again allow plaintiff to
exceed the copy limit. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to Chief of Inmate Services for
NDOC, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, Nevada 89702.
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (#99) is DENIED for the reasons set forth
in the court’s previous orders #s 20 and 49.
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