United States District Court, D. Nevada
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter involves Plaintiff Victor Tagle's pro se
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against
Defendants Jeremy Bean, Jennifer Nash, Kenneth Wing, and
Ronald Oliver for allegedly violating Tagle's civil
rights. Before the Court are (1) Tagle's Motion for Court
Intervention and Authorities Investigation (ECF No. 96),
Motion for Increase on Copywork to Submit Exhibits, and
Submission of Exhibits to the Above Cases (ECF No. 107),
Motion for Review of Filings (ECF No. 108), Motion for
Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 109), and (2) Defendants'
Motion to Strike  Affidavit (ECF No. 114) and Motion to
Strike  Notice (Other),  Notice (Other) (ECF No.
115). These Motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). The Court has considered the
Motions and the Response (ECF No. 105). For the reasons
stated below, the Court denies Tagle's requests for
relief and grants the Defendants' Motions to Strike.
Victor Tagle is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada
Department of Corrections. Since 2003, Tagle has filed
numerous habeas actions and over 30 civil rights actions in
the District of Nevada, 10 of which are open and
active. On July 23, 2015, Tagle commenced this
action by filing an in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) application and complaint. ECF No. 1.
United States District Judge Dorsey entered a screening order
on March 28, 2016, allowing Count 1 (First Amendment
retaliation claim), Count 2 (supervisory-liability claim for
excessive force), Count 3 (excessive force claim), and Count
4 (excessive force claim) of Tagle's Complaint to proceed
against Defendants Nash, Bean, Wing, and
Oliver. ECF No. 2 at 14. On August 18, 2016, this
Court granted Tagle permission to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 and LSR 1-1 of
the Local Rules of Practice. ECF No. 36.
initial matter, the Court notes that Tagle scribbles his
Motions by hand in a manner and style that is illegible and
nearly impossible to read. The Court will summarize
Tagle's Motions to the best of its ability. Tagle is
advised to make sure that his filings are written clearly and
legibly so that his positions are fully understood.
Motion for Court Intervention and Authorities Investigation
(ECF No. 96)
filed this motion in this case and others. The motions are
duplicate requests for relief. Filing multiple motions
requesting the same relief is an abusive litigation tactic
that taxes the resources of the court and all of the parties
to a lawsuit. Other courts have scolded Tagle for filing
duplicate requests for relief. See Tagle v. Nevada,
2:15-cv-00216-JCM-PAL, 2016 WL 6440423, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct.
27, 2016). Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, sanctions may be imposed on an unrepresented party
who signs a paper that is either filed with the court for an
improper purpose or is frivolous. See Nugget
Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 981
F.2d 429, 439 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding Rule 11 sanctions
because a party's second motion to compel largely
duplicated the first) (citing Townsend v. Holman
Consulting Corp., 929 F.3d 1358. 1362 (9th Cir. 1990)
are generally addressed in the order which they are filed.
Therefore, filing a duplicate motion once a motion has
already been filed will not speed up the Court's review
of a movant's request. See Tagle,
2:15-cv-00216-JCM-PAL, 2016 WL 6440423, at *2. In fact,
filing duplicate motions increases the Court's workload
and generally delays decision while a new round of responses
and reply deadlines run. Id. Tagle is again warned
that continued motion practice requesting relief that has
already been denied, filing duplicative motions, or making
frivolous, unsupported requests may result in the imposition
of sanctions, including a recommendation to the district
judge that he be declared a vexatious litigant or that this
case be dismissed. Id.
Motion for Court intervention alleges that Lieutenant Olivas
confiscated and threatened to destroy Tagle's property,
including five legal boxes. ECF No. 96 at 1. The Motion
alleges that a guard named Hoffman-who is not a defendant
named in this case-stated to Tagle that “Legal work is
not authorized-orders of Baker, and
Carpenter!” Id. (emphasis in
original). Tagle also appears to assert that these purported
acts are retaliation from Chris Beecroft (the deceased former
commissioner of the ADR program in the Clark County District
Court), Gerri Hardcastle, Lt. Olivas, Officer Hoffman, an
unnamed Deputy Attorney General, and an unnamed NDOC guard.
Id. Thus, Tagle asks this Court and authorities to
intervene and investigate such retaliation. Tagle provides no
factual support or legal authority for his request.
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
Motion for Increase on Copywork to Submit Exhibits, and
Submission of Exhibits to the Above Cases (ECF No.
Administrative Regulation 722.01(7)(E) allows inmates to
accrue a maximum of $100 debt for legal copywork expenses for
all cases-not per case. In this Motion, Tagle asks the Court
to extend his copy work limit by $30 to submit exhibits for
this case and 6 others. ECF No. 107 at 1.
right to meaningful access to the courts does not confer a
right to free unlimited photocopies. See Sands v.
Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Jones
v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (“[B]road as the
constitutional concept of liberty is, it does not include the
right to xerox.” (7th Cir. 1983)). The Nevada
Department of Corrections provides $100.00 of legal copywork
to prisoner litigants. Tagle asks for $30 in additional money
but he does not state his current balance. Although the Ninth
Circuit has not spoken on the issue, courts in other
jurisdictions have not allowed plaintiffs proceeding in
forma pauperis to receive free copies of documents from
the court without the plaintiff demonstrating a specific
showing of need. See, e.g., Collins v. Goord, 438
F.Supp.2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Guinn v. Hoecker, 43
F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994). Tagle seeks additional copies to
prepare and send exhibits to the Court. ECF No. 107 at 2.
Tagle does not identify any specific document which must be
photocopied, or the quantity of copies which must be made for
him to proceed in this action. The Court requires a more
particularized showing of need before it will order the State
to extend an inmate's copy account. If Tagle believes
that he needs copies for cases in other courts or in other
cases in this court, he must seek an order for copies in each
such particular case based upon a particularized showing of
Motion is denied without prejudice. Tagle may refile the
motion if and only if he is able to make a ...