Fuentes Reyes v. Wolf ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 MARIA MAGDALENA FUENTES REYES, Case No. 2:19-cv-02086-GMN-EJY 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER 8 CHAD WOLF, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 Petitioner Maria M. Fuentes Reyes has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 12 No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 along with a Combined Memorandum of Points and 13 Authorities in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Emergency Motion for 14 Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2). Upon review of the docket, the Court finds that the 15 combined memorandum and motion violates the requirements set forth in the Local Rules of 16 Practice that (1) a “motion and supporting memorandum of points and authorities must be 17 combined into a single document that complies with the page limits in LR 7-3,” LR 7-2(a); 18 (2) “[f]or each type of relief requested or purpose of the document, a separate document must be 19 filed and a separate event must be selected,” LR IC 2-2(a)(3)(A); and (3) exhibits must “be attached 20 as separate files,” LR IC 2-2(d); see also LR IA 10-3. Electronic filers are prohibited from 21 combining a motion, memorandum of points and authorities, declaration, and/or exhibits into one 22 Portable Document Format (PDF) document and then filing that single PDF as the “main 23 document” in CM/ECF’s document upload screen. LR IC 2-2(a)(3)(A) (exhibits “must not be 24 filed as part of the base document in the electronic filing system”). This practice makes it 25 impossible for the Court to seal or unseal specific documents as needed because the docketing 26 clerks cannot separate the pages for sealing purposes. See LR IA 10-5(b). Instead, the Local Rules 27 require litigants to save each document or exhibit as a separate PDF document and then file each 28 PDF in CM/ECF’s document upload screen as “attachments” to a main document. 1 Counsel are responsible for informing themselves and instructing their staff regarding the 2 correct electronic filing procedures.1 Failure to follow the Local Rules of Practice and proper 3 CM/ECF filing procedures will delay and complicate the Court’s review of the docket. The Court 4 may strike from the record any prospective filings that fail to comply with the Local Rules. Ready 5 Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (district courts have the inherent 6 power to strike an improperly filed document) (quotation omitted). 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner Maria M. Fuentes Reyes AMEND the 8 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) to include the memorandum of points and 9 authorities and REFILE the supporting exhibits to comply with the Local Rules of Practice and 10 the Court’s CM/ECF filing procedures. 11 DATED: December 12, 2019 12 13 GLORIA M. NAVARRO 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 The parties are encouraged to contact the CM/ECF Helpdesk at (702) 464-5555 prior to filing should they 27 have any technical questions. For additional direction, the parties may also refer to the updated procedures in CM/ECF Version 4.0 Enhancements and Changes, which is available on the Court’s website. 28