Igbinovia v. Nevada, State of ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 95

ORDER that ECF No. 78 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Defendants' summary judgment pending discovery is GRANTED in part; Plaintiff's response to ECF No. 65 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 2/16/2018; The court DECLINES to review ECF No. 90 Plaintiff's in camera submission of propounded discovery; ECF No. 93 Defendants' Motion to Strike ECF No. 91 Plaintiff's surreply is GRANTED; ECF No. 91 Plaintiff's sur reply is STRICKEN; ECF No. 86 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages is DENIED; ECF No. 77 Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time to complete service is GRANTED; Plaintiff must serve defendant Gregory Martin by 3/30/2018; and ECF No. 87 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve by Publication is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 1/24/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ENOMA IGBINOVIA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )
PRESENT:

3:16-CV-0497-MMD (VPC)
MINUTES OF THE COURT
January 24, 2018

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:
Several motions currently pending, and the court will address each motion in turn.
ECF No. 78 – Plaintiff’s motion to stay defendants’ summary judgment pending discovery
The court notes that defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 64) and a motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 65). Therefore, no scheduling order has issued in this matter
because a scheduling order is issued following an answer. Nevertheless, plaintiff apparently
served numerous requests for discovery prematurely, and defendants received an extension of
time to January 26, 2018 to respond to the requests (ECF No. 88). The court finds defendants’
motion for summary judgment to be procedural in nature because it concerns the statute of
limitations. Therefore, further discovery beyond what has already been propounded and which
defendants are responding to by January 26, 2018 will be unnecessary at this stage.
Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to stay defendants’ summary judgment pending discovery
(ECF No. 78) is GRANTED in part. The Court will allow plaintiff an extension of time to
Friday, February 16, 2018 to file a response to the motion for summary judgment so that he
will have ample time to review the responses to the discovery already propounded.
The court DECLINES to review plaintiff’s in camera submission of propounded
discovery (ECF No. 90).

ECF No. 93 – Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s surreply to defendants’ reply in
support of motion to dismiss
Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s surreply in support of motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 93) is GRANTED. Surreplies are not permitted without leave of court. Local Rule 7-2(b).
Therefore, plaintiff’s surreply (ECF No. 91) is hereby STRICKEN.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is fully briefed and no further briefing on this issue will be
permitted.
ECF No. 86 – Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file in excess of 20 pages in response to
defendants’ motion for summary judgment
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 65) is a total of six pages. There is
no reason for plaintiff to exceed the page limit in response to this motion. Therefore, plaintiff’s
motion for leave to file in excess of 20 pages (ECF No. 86) is DENIED.
ECF No. 77 – Plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time to complete service and
ECF No. 87 – Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve by publication
The only defendant who remains unserved in this action is Gregory Martin because the
U.S. Marshal was unable to serve this defendant at the address provided under seal despite three
attemtps to do so (ECF No. 62). Plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time to complete service
as to Gregory Martin (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have to and including Friday,
March 30, 2018 to serve this defendant. The other defendants are hereby considered timely
served.
Plaintiff also seeks to have Mr. Martin served by publication (ECF No. 87). Plaintiff’s
motion is GRANTED. However, there is no provision in the in forma pauperis statute which
provides for the court, the United States Marshal Service, or the Nevada Attorney General to pay
for the costs associated with service by publication. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also Local Rule
of Special Proceedings and Appeals (“LSR”) 1-6 (“The granting of an application to proceed in
forma pauperis does not waive the applicant’s responsibility to pay the expenses of litigation
which are not covered by 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). While unfortunate for plaintiff, it is not the fault
of the court, the United States Marshal Service, or the Nevada Attorney General that unserved
defendants may have provided an incorrect or no address upon leaving the employ of NDOC.
Therefore, if plaintiff wishes to serve someone by publication, he must make all the
arrangements for such service and cover all the cost of such service at his own expense.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk