United States District Court, D. Nevada
JAMES M. REESE, Plaintiff,
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; et. al., Defendants.
FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court are the following motions:
1) Reese's motion for electronic service of the
defendants (ECF No. 32) and the Defendants' response (ECF No.
2) Reese's motion for issuance of summons (ECF No. 33)
3) Reese's motion to extend prison copy work limit (ECF
No. 34), the Defendants' response (ECF No. 35), and
Reese's reply (ECF No. 38)
Motion for Electronic Service (ECF No. 32)
asks the court to allow him to serve the Defendants
electronically via the court's electronic filing system.
(ECF No. 32) “Except as otherwise set forth in this
rule, electronic transmission of the Notice of Electronic
Filing constitutes services of a document on filers. Parties
and attorneys who are not filers must be served
conventionally under applicable Federal Rules, statutes, or
court orders.” LR IC 4-1(b). The docket does not show
that Reese, a pro se litigant, is a registered
filer. Since he is not a registered filer, Reese must use the
conventional means of service permitted under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Motion for Issuance of Summons (ECF No. 33)
requests that the court issue summons for the following
defendants: (1) Maurice Silva; (2) the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department; (3) the Clark County Detention Center; (4)
the Clark County Detention Center Doe Defendants; and (5)
Daniel Salmon. (ECF No. 33) The Attorney General's Office
has not opposed this motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b),
the motion for issuance of summons is granted as to Maurice
Silva, Daniel Salmon, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department. The Clark County Detention Center is a building
and not a legal entity. As such, no summons will be issued to
the Clark County Detention Center.
a general rule, the use of ‘John Doe' to identify a
defendant is not favored.” Gillespie v.
Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). No summons
will be issued to the Doe Defendants. Should Reese later
discover the identity of the Doe Defendants, he may request
leave to amend his complaint to reflect this development.
Motion to Extend Copy Work Limit (ECF No. 34)
inmate has no constitutional right to free photocopying.
Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991).
Pursuant to NDOC administrative regulation 722.01(7)(D),
inmates “can only accrue a maximum of $100 debt for
copy work expenses for all cases, not per case.” In
this district, courts have found that they can order a prison
to provide limited photocopying when it is necessary for an
inmate to provide copies to the court and other parties.
See Allen v. Clark Cnty. Det. Ctr.,
2:10-CV-00857-RLH, 2011 WL 886343, *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 11,
requests a $90.00 increase to his copy work limit. (ECF No.
34) The court previously granted Reese a $10.00 increase to
his copy work limit. (ECF No. 20) His current request is a
nine-fold increase from the previously approved amount and
would effectively double the amount of copy work Reese is
permitted under NDOC administrative regulation 722.01(7)(D).
Reese has not explained why he needs such a large increase
and has not shown ...