United States District Court, D. Nevada
HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiff Wayne A. Porretti is an inmate incarcerated in the
Nevada Department of Corrections and currently housed at
Lovelock Correctional Center. The parties are familiar with
the facts and procedural history of this case, and the court
need not restate them here. Lastly, the court retains
jurisdiction in this case, despite defendants'
interlocutory appeal. See Plotkin v. Pac. Tel. & Tel.
Co., 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1982) (“it is
firmly established that an appeal from an interlocutory order
does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to continue
with other phases of the case.”); see also United
States v. Pitner, 307 F.3d 1178, 1183 n.5 (9th Cir.
2002) (“during an interlocutory appeal, the district
court retains jurisdiction to address aspects of the case
that are not the subject of the appeal”).
MOTION TO EXTEND COPY WORK
moves the court to extend his copy work account limit,
because he has exceeded his prison copy limit of $100.00.
(Mot. to Extend (ECF No. 55).) Plaintiff further argues that
an extension of the copy work limit is necessary because he
needs to make copies of motions that he is required to serve
on defendants and he cannot afford to pay for such copies.
NDOC Administrative Regulation 722.01(7), copies of legal
documents may be made for inmates for a nominal fee. Inmates
“can only accrue a maximum of $100 debt for copy work
expenses for all cases, not per case.” NDOC Regulation
722.01(7)(D). However, a court may “order a prison to
provide limited photocopying when it is necessary for an
inmate to provide copies to the court and other
parties.” Allen v. Clark Cnty. Det. Ctr.,
2:10-CV-00857-RLH-GWF, 2011 WL 886343, *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 11,
the court finds it necessary to extend plaintiff's copy
work limit, given the pending appeal and status of this case.
Plaintiff's copy work limit will be extended by $10.00 at
this time. If plaintiff exhausts the $10.00 and requires
additional funds, he may file a motion requesting an
extension of the limit. Plaintiff is further advised to use
his copying privileges sparingly, and to refrain from filing
numerous and duplicative motions.
MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPT AND MOTION TO DISREGARD
February 4, 2019, plaintiff filed his motion for a production
of a transcript of the January 29, 2018 preliminary
injunction hearing, at the government's expense. (Mot.
for Production (ECF No. 56).) Defendants filed their response
on February 19, 2019, objecting to the request to the extent
that the motion seeks to have defendants pay for the costs of
the transcript. (Resp. (ECF No. 56).) However, plaintiff
moves the court to disregard the response because it was
untimely. (Mot. to Disregard (ECF No. 81).) Defendants did
not respond to plaintiff's motion to disregard.
Local Rule 7-2(b), the “deadline to file and serve any
points and authorities in response to the motion is 14 days
after service of the motion.” Further, Local Rule
7-2(d) states that the “failure of an opposing party to
file points and authorities in response to any motion, except
a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 or a motion for attorney's
fees, constitutes a consent to granting of the motion.”
Here, defendants filed their response to the motion for
transcript after the deadline imposed by the Local Rules, and
plaintiff requests that the court disregard the response for
that reason. Subsequently, defendants failed to respond to
plaintiff's motion to disregard. As such, the court
grants the motion to disregard. And because the court grants
the motion to disregard, the court must also grant the motion
for a transcript. Defendants are directed to provide a copy
of the transcript for the hearing held on January 29, 2019 to
MOTION FOR DOCUMENT
requests a copy of ECF No. 52, as he did not receive a copy
when the document was filed. (Mot. for Document (ECF No.
58).) The court declines to provide plaintiff a copy of this
filing. Upon granting plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, the court directed the Attorney
General's Office to file under seal the last known
address for defendants for whom the Attorney General's
Office cannot accept service. (Order (ECF No. 34).) ECF No.
52 contains the information required by the court's
order, and as such, plaintiff is not entitled to a copy. The
court denies the motion for a copy of ECF No. 52.
MOTION FOR COPIES
moves the court to send him a copy of ECF No. 65, because he
mailed the court the only copy in his possession. (Mot. for
Copies (ECF No. 67).)
the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) the court need only direct
payment for the following in forma pauperis
(1) printing the record on appeal in any civil or criminal
case, if such printing is required by the appellate court;
(2) preparing a transcript of proceedings before a United
States magistrate judge in any civil or criminal case, if
such transcript is required by the district court, in the
case of proceedings conducted under section 636(b) of this
title or under section 3401(b) of title 18, United States
Code; and (3) printing the record on appeal if such printing
is required by the appellate court, in the case of
proceedings conducted pursuant to section 636(c) of this
under Local Rule 10-1,
An attorney or pro se party who wishes to receive a
file-stamped copy of any pleading or other paper must submit
one additional copy and, if by mail, a self-addressed,
postage-paid envelope. A party who is granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis need not submit a self-addressed,
such, plaintiff is not entitled to complimentary copies of
court documents. However, the court finds good cause to grant
plaintiff's request for a one-time copy of ECF No. 65.
The clerk of court shall send a file-stamped copy of ECF No.
65 to plaintiff. In the future, if plaintiff wishes to
receive a file-stamped copy of any filings, pursuant to Local
Rule 10-1, he must submit one additional copy with the