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.

Tagle v. Fajota

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 19, 2017

VICTOR TAGLE, Plaintiff,
v.
VENUS FAJOTA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter involves Plaintiff Victor Tagle's pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Nevada Department of Correction (“NDOC”) banking main supervisor Venus Fajota, caseworker Anthony Ritz, law library supervisor Jenice Salazar, and caseworker Larry Weust. Before the Court are Tagle's (1) Motion for Complaint's Copy and Authorities Intervention (ECF No. 27); (2) Motion for Increase on Copywork to Submit Exhibits, and Submission of Exhibits to the Above Cases (ECF No. 35); (3) Motion for Court's Intervention (ECF No. 36); (4) Motion for Review of Filings (ECF No. 37); (5) Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 38); and (6) Motion for Issue of Summonses on Record, Illegal Confiscation of Documents / Exhibits Physical / Emotional Stress Inflicted on Plaintiff due to Retaliation (ECF No. 41). The Court has considered the Motions. For the reasons stated below, Tagle's Motions are denied.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Victor Tagle is a prisoner in the custody of the NDOC. 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] Tagle commenced this action on October 30, 2015, by filing an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application and complaint in this Court. ECF Nos. 1, 8. United States District Judge Mahan entered a screening order on April 19, 2016, dismissing 16 counts against 12 defendants and allowing a due process claim against Fajota, retaliation claims against Ritz and Weust, and an outgoing mail violation claim against Salazar to proceed.[2] See ECF No. 7 at 14-15. On September 1, 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. See ECF No. 18.

         II. Discussion

         As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Tagle writes his Motions by hand in a manner and style that is nearly impossible to read. The Court is no graphologist, but will do its best to summarize.[3]Tagle is advised to make sure that his filings are written clearly and legibly so that this Court can understand his positions.

         A. Motion for Complaint's Copy and Authorities Intervention (ECF No. 27)

         Tagle's Motion for Complaint's Copy and Authorities Intervention requests this Court and “the proper authorities” to intervene in this matter. Tagle alleges that Chris A. Beecroft, Clark Leslie, and Hardcastle ordered Renee Baker to confiscate Tagle's “5 boxes of legal documents” and put him in a “max security cell.” ECF No. 27 at 1. Tagle also asserts that these individuals have abused him repeatedly. Id. Tagle states that while Clark Leslie and Adam Laxalt's motions “took 3 days for the clerk to submit them before the court, ” his motions have been held for months, even years due to the “busy” schedule of the Court's Clerk. Id. at 2. Tagle asks this Court to review such “shortcomings.” Id.

         Tagle's Motion objects to the actions of individuals who are not parties to this case. In fact, Tagle's Motion does not even mention the named Defendants. In any event, Tagle's Motion does not request any specific relief from the Court, let alone provide factual or evidentiary support or legal authority for his motion. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

         If Tagle were seeking injunctive relief to prohibit alleged harassment or abuse by NDOC correctional officers, that request would most likely be denied.[4] He has not met his burden of showing, inter alia, a likelihood of success on the merits. Further, it does not appear that Tagle has exhausted his administrative remedies regarding the allegations that the guards or library supervisors are taking his mail and legal papers or physically abusing him. Consequently, Tagle has not made a clear showing that injunctive relief is appropriate.

         B. Motion for Increase on Copywork to Submit Exhibits, and Submission of Exhibits to the Above Cases (ECF No. 35)

         In this Motion, Tagle asks the Court to extend his copy work limit by $30 to submit exhibits for this case and 6 others. See ECF No. 35 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)). 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. 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. See ECF No. 35 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 ...


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.