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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?