Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Porretti v. Dzurenda

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 12, 2019

WAYNE A PORRETTI, Plaintiff,
v.
DZURENDA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          C.W. HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Pro se 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”).

         I. MOTION TO EXTEND COPY WORK

         Plaintiff 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.

         Under 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, 2011).

         Here, 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.

         II. MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPT AND MOTION TO DISREGARD

         On 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.

         Under 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 plaintiff.

         III. MOTION FOR DOCUMENT

         Plaintiff 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.

         IV. MOTION FOR COPIES

         Plaintiff 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).)

         Under the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) the court need only direct payment for the following in forma pauperis expenses:

(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 title.

         Also, 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, postage-paid envelope.

         As 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 filing.

         V. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.