United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER RE: ECF NOS. 26, 27, 28, 29
William G. Cobb United States Magistrate Judge.
has filed three motions for emergency injunctions. (ECF Nos.
26, 27, 28.) Plaintiff has also filed a request for an
extension. (ECF No. 29.)
is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of
Corrections (NDOC), proceeding pro se with this action.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 20, 2019, without
paying the filing fee or completing an application to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP). (ECF No. 1-1.)
March 8, 2019, he filed a motion for an extension of time
until April 19, 2019, to file a formal complaint and to file
the IFP application or pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 3.) That
same day, he filed a notification of interrogatories (ECF No.
4), motion to perpetuate testimony (ECF No. 5), and request
for an injunction (ECF No. 6).
March 11, 2019, the court issued an order granting
Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a
completed IFP application or pay the full filing fee. (ECF
No. 7.) The court undertook a preliminary review of the
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, which require dismissal of a complaint, or any
portion of a complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
The court pointed out that Plaintiff's complaint included
absolutely no factual allegations to support the claimed
violations of his constitutional rights. In addition, the
complaint asserted claims that were not properly brought in a
civil rights action under section 1983 unless the underlying
conviction had been invalidated. Instead, such claims should
be asserted in a habeas petition after applicable state
remedies are exhausted. As a result, the court granted
Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a
formal complaint. He was cautioned that any amended complaint
must not seek to challenge his conviction or sentence unless
the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. He was also
advised that insofar as he alleged violations by the
prosecuting attorney in his criminal case, prosecutors are
entitled to absolute immunity with respect to initiating a
prosecution and presenting the State's case.
the court denied the motion to perpetuate testimony because
there was no operative complaint on file, and denied the
motion for an injunction without prejudice because he did not
address the factors that are a prerequisite to granting
was given until April 19, 2019, to file his IFP application
or pay the full filing fee, and to file an amended complaint.
He was cautioned that a failure to do so may result in
dismissal of his action without prejudice.
March 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed several more motions,
including: a request for informal settlement discussions, a
motion for an order compelling disclosure or discovery, and a
motion for an order setting an early mediation conference.
(ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11.) The following day, the court denied the
motions without prejudice as premature because Plaintiff
still had not paid the filing fee or an IFP application, and
had not filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.)
April 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for extension of
time, until May 20, 2019, to comply with the court's
order at ECF No. 7. (ECF No. 13.) The following day, the
court granted the motion and gave Plaintiff until May 20,
2019 to comply with ECF No. 7. (ECF No. 14.)
11, 2019, Plaintiff filed another request for an injunction.
(ECF No. 15.) Once again, he did not address the factors that
are a prerequisite for injunctive relief, despite having been
advised of this requirement in the court's prior order.
In fact, the motion contained no factual assertions
at all, other than to say that some of the defendants were
still violating his rights. He also filed another motion
requesting informal settlement discussions, a motion to
compel discovery, and a proposed order setting an early
inmate mediation conference, even though the court had
previously denied similar motions because he had not paid the
filing fee or completed an IFP application, and no operative
complaint was on file. As a result, on April 12, 2019, the
court denied these motions without prejudice as premature.
(ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff was advised again of the May 20, 2019
deadline to pay the filing fee or complete an IFP application
and file an amended complaint.
April 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed three requests for judicial
notice and two notifications of motions. (ECF Nos. 20, 21,
22, 23, 24.) He stated that he submitted three motions to the
court which were mistakenly filed in case
3:19-cv-00094-MMD-WGC, and moved to strike them and file them
in this case. He also notified the court of incorrect
spelling of a defendant's name, and the correct last name
of a defendant.
April 24, 2019, the court issued an order denying these
motions without prejudice. (ECF No. 25.) The court reminded
Plaintiff that the litigation would not proceed until he paid
the filing fee or filed a completed IFP application as well
as an amended complaint. Plaintiff was directed to adhere to
the May 20 deadline to file his IFP application (or pay the
filing fee) and his amended complaint. The court cautioned
Plaintiff that absent extraordinary circumstances, it would
not consider further filings until Plaintiff had satisfied
the requirements of ECF No. 7.
6, 2019, Plaintiff filed another request for an extension of
time, to June 19, 2019, to file his IFP application, stating
that NDOC had failed to comply with his request for a
financial statement. (ECF No. 29.)
has filed this request for an extension before the current
deadline of May 20, 2019, has expired. Therefore,