Novoa v. Baca et al

Filing 35

ORDER GRANTING ECF No. 15 Motion to Extend Time; GRANTING ECF No. 23 Motion to Strike; and, GRANTING ECF No. 27 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 5/15/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
GUILLERMO RENTERIA-NOVOA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
PRESENT:

3:15-cv-00537-MMD-VPC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
May 15, 2017

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: ECF Nos. 15, 23, and 27.
On December 21, 2016, defendants filed their motion to extend time to file a motion to
enforce settlement (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff opposed the motion (ECF No. 16). Defendants
subsequently filed their motion to enforce settlement on December 30, 2016. Defendants’
motion to extend time (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.
On January 17, 2017, defendants moved to strike plaintiff’s notice of change of address
(ECF No. 20) and plaintiff’s response to defendants’ motion to enforce settlement (ECF No. 21).
Defendants moved to strike these documents on the grounds that they were filed by another
inmate who is not an attorney of record in the case and plaintiff failed to sign the documents.
(ECF No. 23 at 2.) Local Rule IC 5-1(b) requires that “[t]he signatory must be the attorney or
pro se party who electronically files the document.” Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(f) provides that the court may strike “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” Having thoroughly reviewed the documents, the court finds that the documents do not
comply with the Local Rules, and they are “redundant, immaterial, [and] impertinent.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(f). Accordingly, defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED.

1

On January 24, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file his opposition to
defendants’ motion to enforce settlement conference (ECF No. 27). Defendants opposed (ECF
No. 31), and plaintiff replied (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file (ECF No. 27) is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK

BY:

/s/
Deputy Clerk