United States District Court, D. Nevada
RESPONSE TO REPORT (ECF NO. 142), MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF NO. 145), MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court are Plaintiff Victor Tagle's Response to the
Report of the Office of the Attorney General (ECF No. 142),
Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Response and Affidavit (ECF No. 145), and
Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response and
Affidavit (ECF No. 146). For the reasons stated below,
Defendants' motions are granted and Plaintiff's
Response and affidavit are stricken.
September 8, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to stay this
case pending resolution of a case in the Seventh Judicial
District Court that “is identical to the matter now
before this Court.” (ECF No. 43 at 2). Plaintiff failed
to file an opposition, and the Court granted the motion to
stay the proceedings on September 29, 2016. (ECF No. 52).
Following a status report indicating the Seventh Judicial
District Court case “is continuing in the normal
course, ” (ECF No. 140 at 2), the Court extended the
stay to January 3, 2018 (ECF No. 141).
September 11 and 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Response to the
status report and an affidavit in support of the response.
(ECF Nos. 142, 143). Plaintiff appears to argue that the
Court and Defendants are illegally conspiring to interfere
with Plaintiff's case by staying the matter even though
the Seventh Judicial District Court case is not the same as
the matter before the Court. (ECF No. 142 at 1-3).
September 18, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for leave to
file a motion to strike the Response and affidavit (ECF No.
145) and their motion to strike (ECF No. 146). Defendants
argue Plaintiff's Response and affidavit violates the
Court's order staying the case and has no factual or
legal basis. (ECF No. 146 at 2-3). Plaintiff filed a response
to the motions, but it only contains incoherent allegations
regarding allegedly wrongful conduct by Defendants'
counsel and the Court. (ECF No. 147).
is well established that ‘[d]istrict courts have
inherent power to control their docket, '”
including the authority “to strike items from the
docket as a sanction for litigation conduct.” Ready
Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry.
v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.1998)).
Documents filed in violation of a court order must be
stricken from the record as fugitive documents. Almy v.
Davis, No. 2:12-CV-00129-JCM-VCF, 2014 WL 773813, at *5
(D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2014); Reiger v. Nevens,
3:12-CV-00218-MMD-VPC, 2014 WL 537613, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 7,
Court finds Plaintiff's Response and affidavit were filed
in violation of a Court order. The Court stayed the
proceedings in this case until January 3, 2018. (ECF No.
141). Plaintiff did not obtain leave of the Court to file any
documents in the case during the pendency of the
stay. As Plaintiff's Response and affidavit
are fugitive documents, they must be stricken from the
and for good cause, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion
for Leave to File Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response
and Affidavit (ECF No. 145) and Defendant's Motion to
Strike Plaintiff's Response and Affidavit (ECF No. 146)
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Response to the Report of the
Office of the Attorney General (ECF No. 142) and Affidavit in
Support of Plaintiff s Claims (ECF No. 143) is STRICKEN.
to Local Rule IB 3-1, any objection to this Order must be in
writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days.
The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may
determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure
to file objections within the specified time. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also
held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified
time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the
objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District
Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order
of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United
Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).