Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Tagle v. Bean

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 18, 2017

VICTOR TAGLE, Plaintiff,
LIEUTENANT BEAN, et al., Defendants.



         This 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 [99] Affidavit (ECF No. 114) and Motion to Strike [102] Notice (Other), [103] 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.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff 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.[1] 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.[2] 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.

         II. Discussion

         As an 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.

         A. Motion for Court Intervention and Authorities Investigation (ECF No. 96)

         Tagle filed this motion in this case and others.[3] 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) (en banc)).

         Motions 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.

         Tagle's 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.

         B. Motion for Increase on Copywork to Submit Exhibits, and Submission of Exhibits to the Above Cases (ECF No. 107)

         NDOC 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.

         The 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 need.

         Tagle's Motion is denied without prejudice. Tagle may refile the motion if and only if he is able to make a ...

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.