Tagle v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 65 Plaintiff's Motion for Court's and FBI's Intervention and Evidentiary Hearing in Regard to Tampering of Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 5/16/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
VICTOR TAGLE, SR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
May 16, 2017

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE OGDEN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Court’s and FBI’s Intervention and Evidentiary
Hearing in Regard to Tampering of Cases (ECF No. 65). Plaintiff appears to object to the electronic
filing system the U.S. District Court has implemented in conjunction with the Nevada Department
of Corrections (NDOC), more specifically, with the Lovelock Correctional Center (LCC).
To answer Plaintiff’s question about what was lodged with the court (ECF No. 65 at 10), the
court received-and filed- 22 pages which comprised Plaintiff’s filing (Motion, pp. 1-10; Exhibit 1,
pp. 11-12; Exhibit 2, pp. 13-14, supposedly encompassing 177 pages but only two were submitted;
Exhibit 3, pp. 15-22, supposedly an extract of a multiple page filing in another action.)
The court has previously addressed on May 9, 2017, an inquiry made to the court by Plaintiff
whether his response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was received by the court. The
court assured Plaintiff Tagle it was. (ECF No. 56.) The court also advised Plaintiff’s compliance
with the e-filing system is mandatory for NDOC inmates housed at LCC. (Id.)
///

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC
May 16, 2017
Page Two

Subsequent to the court’s May 9, 2017, order, Plaintiff has filed the following documents:
ECF No. 57 (29 pages) - Plaintiff’s Answer to Defendants’ Response
to Request for Extension on Submission of Discoveries due to the
D.A.G.’s Illegal, Removal of Property and Summary Judgment (filed
in multiple cases Plaintiff has pending).
ECF No. 58 (2 pages) - Plaintiff’s Response to Minutes of the Court.
ECF No. 63 (4 pages) - Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Summons
Regarding Illegal Confiscation of Documents/Exhibits
Physical/Emotional Stress Inflicted on Plaintiff Due to Retaliation.
Based upon the documents from Plaintiff which have been logged onto the court’s docket,
the court is skeptical about Plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct and “tampering” with Plaintiff’s
filings by the LCC Clerk’s Offices or by the deputies attorney general he identifies. While Plaintiff
complains about the e-filing system, he presents nothing of substance to the court with respect to any
“tampering” of his filings.
Plaintiff’s reliance on NDOC/LCC operational procedure 723.03(3)(b) is misplaced.
(ECF No. 65 at 8.) The reference to an inmate being provided a file stamped copy of a filing is what
another party (e.g., the Defendants) may file. It does not refer to the filings an inmate may
undertake.
Although the court will not order Plaintiff to view his “e-filings” on the internet (which
would be inconsistent with Nevada State law and inmate management by NDOC), the court will
direct the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff Tagle with a current copy of the court’s public
docket for this case.
The court will not refer Plaintiff’s complaint regarding the LCC e-filing system to the Federal
Bureau of Investigations (FBI). Plaintiff may contact the FBI if he do desires.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Court’s and FBI’s Intervention and Evidentiary Hearing in Regard to
Tampering of Cases (ECF No. 65) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK
By:
/s/
Deputy Clerk