Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reese v. Clark County Detention Center

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 7, 2017

JAMES M. REESE, Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; et. al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          CAM FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court are the following motions:

1) Reese's motion for electronic service of the defendants (ECF No. 32) and the Defendants'[1] response (ECF No. 36)
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)

         I. Discussion

         1. Motion for Electronic Service (ECF No. 32)

         Reese 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.

         2. Motion for Issuance of Summons (ECF No. 33)

         Reese 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.

         “As 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. See id.

         3. Motion to Extend Copy Work Limit (ECF No. 34)

         An 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, 2011).

         Reese 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.