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. 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.
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. 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.
initial matter, the Court advises Tagle to make sure that his
filings are written clearly and legibly, so that his
positions are understood.
Motion for Issue of Summonses on Record, Illegal Confiscation
of Documents / Exhibits Physical / Emotional Stress Inflicted
on Plaintiff due to Retaliation (ECF No. 116)
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.
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.
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.
Tagle were seeking injunctive relief to prohibit alleged
harassment or abuse by NDOC correctional officers, that
request would not be adequately supported. 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.
Defendants' Motion to Strike
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,
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