United States District Court, D. Nevada
A. LEEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Frederick Omoyuma
Silver's Response (ECF No. 51) to the court's Order
to Show Cause (ECF No. 48). This Response is referred to the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR
IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.
case involves Plaintiff's allegations of civil rights
violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with regard to a
child support order entered by the Eighth Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada. On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff
commenced this action by paying the standard filing fee and
submitting a Complaint (ECF No. 1). See also Am.
Compl. (ECF No. 8).
requested and received leave of the court under LR IC 2-1(b)
to use the CM/ECF system in order to file, access, and
electronically serve documents in this case. Jan. 18, 2019
Order (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff timely filed a Notice of
Completion of ECF Tutorial (ECF No. 11) and began filing on
the CM/ECF system. However, to date, Plaintiff has received
17 error notices (ECF Nos. 16, 18, 19, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34,
44, 66, 69, 72, 73, 78, 87, 89, 103) from the clerk's
office advising Plaintiff that his filings violate the Local
Rules of Practice and instructing him to comply with the
rules regarding electronic filing and/or to refile documents.
See generally LR Part IC - Electronic Case Filing.
The clerk's office has also modified eight docket
entry's based on Plaintiff's failure to follow the
correct CM/ECF filing procedures. ECF Nos. 52, 54, 55, 61,
75, 76, 94, 100.
of Plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with the Local
Rules of Practice and directions received from the
clerk's office to remedy his errors, the court entered
and Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 48) (“OSC”)
requiring Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court
should not revoke his authorization to file and serve
documents in this case through the CM/ECF system. The OSC
warned that a failure to timely respond by March 22, 2019,
would result in immediate revocation of Plaintiff's
authorization to file and serve documents in this case
through the CM/ECF system. Id. at 2.
response to the OSC, Plaintiff claims a magistrate judge
lacks authority and jurisdiction in this case. ECF No. 51.
Plaintiff also objected to the undersigned's Order (ECF
No. 49) denying numerous motions. Plaintiff maintains that
the OSC and order are “absolutely nullities and void ab
initio.” ECF No. 51 at 2 (emphasis omitted). United
States District Judge Andrew P. Gordon overruled
Plaintiff's objection, holding that Plaintiff “is
incorrect in his assertion that Magistrate Judge Leen cannot
issue valid orders in this case.” Order (ECF No. 63).
The order cautioned that Plaintiff's
“failure to abide by Judge Leen's or my
orders may result in sanctions, including revoking his
authorization to serve and file documents in this case
through the CM/ECF system, monetary
sanctions, or case-ending sanctions.”
Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).
filing by pro se parties is a privilege granted by the court.
See LR IC 2-1, Electronic Filing System Filers:
Registration, Training, and Responsibilities. It is
well-settled that courts have the inherent power to manage
the dockets in their cases. See United States v. W.R.
Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
(citing Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v.
Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998)).
Filing multiple motions requesting the same relief is an
abusive litigation tactic that taxes the resources of the
court and all of the parties to this lawsuit. Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that sanctions may
be imposed on an unrepresented party who signs a paper that
is either filed with the court for an improper purpose or is
frivolous. See Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas
& Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 439 (9th Cir. 1992)
(upholding Rule 11 sanctions because a party's second
motion to compel largely duplicated the first) (citing
Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.3d 1358,
1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc)). Once a motion is filed,
filing a duplicate motion will not speed up the court's
review of a movant's request since motions are generally
addressed in the order which they were filed. To the
contrary, filing duplicate motions increases the court's
workload and generally delays decision while a new round of
responses and reply deadlines run.
court has considered Plaintiffs conduct in this case and the
entire record. Since the OSC was entered March 8, 2019,
Plaintiff has continued to file documents incorrectly on the
court's docket. The clerk's office has issued
eight additional notices of error and modified the
docket another eight times. ECF No. 52, 54, 55, 61,
66, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 87, 89, 94, 100103. Furthermore, many
of his filings contain duplicate requests for relief.
Plaintiff is again warned that continued motion
practice requesting relief that has already been denied or
making frivolous, unsupported requests may result in the
imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this
case. Plaintiffs voluminous and repetitive filings,
failure to comply with the court's electronic filing
procedures, and failure to comply with the Local Rules of
Practice and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have all
impeded the administration of justice in this case, wasted
judicial resources, and are an abuse of his electronic filing
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Frederick Omoyuma Silver's CM/ECF ability to
file and serve electronically is REVOKED and the
Clerk of Court shall revoke his account and
2. Plaintiffs continued failure to comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of Practice in
filing documents with the court may result in the imposition
of sanctions, up to and including case-dispositive sanctions.
 Notably, Plaintiff recently violated
LR IC 6-1 by filing his Motion for Evidence (ECF No. 94)
displaying the full name of the minor child who is the
subject of this case. The Local Rules of Practice explicitly
require that parties only use the initials of a minor child
in court filings. LR IC 6-1. The clerk's office sent