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. Bean

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 1, 2017

VICTOR TAGLE, Plaintiff,
v.
LIEUTENANT BEAN, 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 Jeremy Bean, Jennifer Nash, Kenneth Wing, and Ronald Oliver. Before the Court are (1) Tagle's “Motion for Issue of Summonses on Record, Illegal Confiscation of Documents / Exhibits Physical / Emotional Stress Inflicted on Plaintiff due to Retaliation” (ECF No. 116), and (2) Defendants' Motion to Strike [ECF No. 117] Tagle's “Complaint in Regard: E-Mail & The People Who Handles It” (ECF No. 100). Tagle filed a Response to the Defendants' Motion to Strike. See ECF No. 119. The Defendants' filed a Reply. See ECF No. 123. The Court has reviewed the parties' filings. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Tagle's request for relief and grants the Defendants' Motion to Strike.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Victor Tagle is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”). Since 2003, Tagle has filed over 30 civil rights actions in the District of Nevada. On July 23, 2015, Tagle filed an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application and complaint. See ECF No. 1. United States District Judge Jennifer Dorsey entered a screening order on March 28, 2016 allowing only 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.[1] See ECF No. 2 at 14. In August 2016, this Court granted Tagle permission to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and LSR 1-1 of the Local Rules of Practice. See ECF No. 36.

         II. Discussion

         As an initial matter, the Court advises Tagle to make sure that his filings are written clearly and legibly, so that his positions are understood.

         A. Motion for Issue of Summonses on Record, Illegal Confiscation of Documents / Exhibits Physical / Emotional Stress Inflicted on Plaintiff due to Retaliation (ECF No. 116)

         In this Motion, Tagle requests the following: (1) “Authorities' and Courts' Intervention” (2) “Evidentiary Hearing” and (3) “Summonses to Serve defendants.” See ECF No. 116 at 3-4.

         Tagle's Motion provides neither factual or evidentiary support, nor specific legal authority for his requests. Instead, the Motion objects to a document entitled “Motion to Strike Affidavit in Support of Cases and Request of Summonses to Serve Defendants in Regard Illegal Confiscation of Exhibits and Retaliation Physical Punishment et al.” Id. at 1. The Motion directs the Court to “document No 59 5/9/14, 3:16-cv-148 @ usdc.” Id. Although the Motion refers to another one of Tagle's cases, the Court notes that a similar motion to strike was filed in this case. See ECF No. 114.

         Tagle requests this Court to issue summonses for individuals that are not Defendants in this case. Tagle requests summonses for the following individuals: (1) the State of Nevada, (2) NDOC, (3) Warden Renee Baker, (4) Carpenter (both wife and husband), (5) “increase on the $20 copywork, ” (6) Lieutenant Olivas (both wife and husband), (7) six NDOC guards (Garrett, Gouvea, Vinsley, Bennett, Hoffman, and Moone), (8) law library supervisor Pamela Feil, and (9) Email/Feil's supervisor Gilden. See ECF No. 116 at 3-4. Judge Dorsey, however, previously entered a screening order allowing this case to proceed only on four counts against Defendants Nash, Bean, Wing, and Oliver. See ECF No. 2 at 14. Tagle does not request summonses for these remaining defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. The Court notes for clarity that the Motion's request for a summons for an individual named “LT. Olivas” refers to NDOC Lieutenant Valaree Olivas, not Lieutenant Ronald Oliver. See ECF Nos. 116 at 3-4; 105-2 at 2. Valaree Olivas is not a defendant in this case; Ronald Oliver is. The Motion is denied.

         If Tagle were seeking injunctive relief to prohibit alleged harassment or abuse by NDOC correctional officers, that request would not be adequately supported.[2] There is no showing of 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. Defendants' Motion to Strike

         On May 1, 2017, Tagle filed a motion entitled “Complaint in Regard: E-Mail & The People Who Handles It” (“Complaint”). See ECF No. 100. The Complaint is difficult to comprehend. Tagle appears to be alleging that various NDOC employees are restricting or inhibiting his ability to send and receive paper and electronic documents related to his court cases. For example, it states:

P. Feal confiscated my legal work, and “kept it to decided what should I have or not … furthermore, her assistance who hands the E-mail has challenged court's orders denying the Plaintiff with copies of documents filed or received by the court … furthermore ...

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.