United States District Court, D. Nevada
RENE F. FERNANDEZ, Plaintiffs,
ROMEO ARANAS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (DOCKET NO. 30)
J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration. Docket No. 30. Defendants have filed a
response in opposition. Docket No. 32. No reply has been
filed. The Court finds the motion properly decided without a
hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.
reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED to the extent
it relates to the undersigned's previous order. The Court
otherwise expresses no opinion at this time subject to
Plaintiff filing proper motions for relief consistent with
the local rules.
Issues Properly Before the Court
initial thrust of Plaintiff's motion is seeking
reconsideration of an order issued by the undersigned
previously. See Docket No. 30 at 2-5. It appears
Plaintiff may also be seeking reconsideration of the
screening order issued by United States District Judge James
C. Mahan. See, e.g., id. at 5-9. That issue
is not properly before the Court, as parties are required to
limit each of their filings to addressing a single request
for relief. See Local Rule IC 2-2(b). To the extent
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of Judge Mahan's
screening order, he must file a new motion specifically
identifying that as the relief requested and limiting that
filing to that relief. The Court will therefore proceed
herein to resolve only the aspects of the motion related to
the undersigned's previous order.
Motion for Reconsideration
undersigned's previous order, the Court denied outright
Plaintiff's requests related to his contention that
Defendant violated the stay in this case and as it related to
his request that the Court order the filing of an answer.
See Docket No. 29 at 1, 2. Plaintiff seeks
reconsideration of those aspects of the Court's order.
Docket No. 30 at 3. Motions for reconsideration are
disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b). Reconsideration of an
interlocutory order is appropriate if (1) there is newly
discovered evidence that was not available when the original
motion or response was filed, (2) the Court committed clear
error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)
there is an intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule
pending motion fails to establish such circumstances here.
See Docket No. 30 at 3. Accordingly, this
aspect of the pending motion is DENIED.
Motion to Extend Copywork Limit
Court previously denied without prejudice Plaintiff's
request to extend his copywork limit for failing to make a
sufficient showing. Docket No. 29 at 3. An inmate has no
constitutional right to free photocopying. Johnson v.
Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991). Pursuant to
NDOC regulations, inmates can only accrue a maximum of $100
debt for copy work expenses for all cases. See,
e.g., Weddle v. Baker, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis
151674, *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2014). “In this district,
courts have found that they can order a prison to extend
limited photocopying ‘when it is necessary for an
inmate to provide copies to the Court and other
parties.'” Santos v. Baca, 2014 WL
6792006, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 2, 2014) (quoting Allen v.
Clark Cnty. Det. Ctr., 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31756 (D.
Nev. Mar. 11, 2011)).
contends here that it is not feasible for him to make copies
through alternative means, such as by hand. See
Docket No. 30 at 4. Such a bare bones assertion is not a
sufficient showing that Plaintiff's copywork limit must
be increased, and the Court is not persuaded that alternative
means of copying are unavailable or not feasible in this
case. Accordingly, this aspect of the pending motion is
Exhibit to Motion for Summary Judgment
Court previously denied without prejudice Plaintiffs request
for access to Exhibit C to Defendant's motion for summary
judgment. Docket No. 29 at 2. In particular, the Court noted
that Plaintiff had failed to explain whether he had pursued
available options to review that exhibit, including by
reviewing his complete medical records under the direct
supervision of medical staff. Id. Plaintiffs pending
motion continues to assert that he has not received this
exhibit. See Docket No. 30 at 3. Nonetheless,
Plaintiff has again failed to explain whether he has pursued
the avenues available to him to review the exhibit as
previously outlined by the Court. See Id.
Accordingly, this aspect of the pending motion is DENIED.