Bonham v. Aranas ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 BRYAN B. BONHAM, Case No.: 2:17-cv-02398-RFB-NJK 12 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 13 v. [Docket Nos. 42, 51] 14 ROMERO ARANAS, et al., 15 Defendant(s). 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion demanding an inspection for fraud on the 17 Court. Docket No. 42. Defendants filed a response. Docket No. 42. No reply was filed. Also 18 pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his earlier motion. Docket No. 51. 19 Defendants filed a response, Docket No. 59, and Plaintiff filed a reply, Docket No. 61. The 20 motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 21 As to the motion to supplement (Docket No. 51) the earlier motion, that is GRANTED and 22 the Court will consider the information provided therein in ruling on the underlying motion 23 demanding an inspection for fraud on the Court. 24 Although not entirely clear, Plaintiff’s motion and subsequent filings are premised on his 25 assertions that various positions advanced by Defendants in different filings are false. See Docket 26 No. 42 at 4-6 (addressing the answer, a response to a motion to amend, and responses to requests 27 for admission). Plaintiff also asserts that the Court’s denial of his motion to compel discovery has 28 prejudiced his ability to advance this case. See Docket No. 61 at 4. 1 The case law cited by Plaintiff provides for contempt-like ancillary proceedings when a litigant’s misconduct renders the “judicial machinery [unable to] perform in the usual manner.” 3]) See Cobell v. Norton, 226 F. Supp. 2d 1, 24 (D.D.C. 2002) (quoting Transaero v. La Fuerza Area 4} Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457, 460 (2d Cir. 1994)), vacated, 334 F.3d 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has not shown that the normal adversarial process is insufficient to address the issues he has raised. 6|| To the extent Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants’ denials as to the allegations in this case, he may 7|| attempt to prove otherwise at trial. To the extent Plaintiff disagrees with a position advanced in a 8|| brief, he may explain that disagreement in his own briefing. To the extent Plaintiff disagrees with 9|| discovery responses, he may seek appropriate relief under the governing rules. To the extent 10|| Plaintiff disagrees with the rulings of the Court, he may seek appropriate relief under the governing 11] rules.! The Court declines to institute a parallel proceeding by which Plaintiff can notify the Court of his various disagreements with Defendants’ positions or the Court’s rulings. 13 Accordingly, the motion demanding an inspection for fraud on the Court (Docket No. 42) 14] is DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: August 21, 2019 Nancy J. Keppe 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Plaintiff separately moved the Court to reconsider its order denying without prejudice his motion to compel. Docket No. 53. The Court is denying that motion to reconsider through a 28] separate order issued concurrently herewith.