Graham v. State of Nevada ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Sankona Graham, Case No. 2:24-cv-00790-ART-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 State of Nevada, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court are eight motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Sankona Graham. (ECF Nos. 12 85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 94, 96, 98). The Court addresses each below. Additionally, the Court 13 admonishes Plaintiff that his habit of filing excessive motions slows the pace of this litigation and 14 unnecessarily clutters the docket. 15 I. Plaintiff’s motions. 16 A. Motion to clarify/modify (ECF No. 85). 17 Plaintiff moves to supplement his prior motion to reconsider1 the Court’s screening 18 order.2 (ECF No. 85). But the Court has already resolved Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the 19 Court’s screening order. (ECF No. 92). Because Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider has been 20 resolved, the Court denies his motion to “clarify/modify” it as moot. 21 B. Motion for leave to add Nurse Penny (ECF No. 86). 22 Plaintiff moves to “add Nurse Penny” to Plaintiff’s “response”3 to the Office of the 23 Attorney General’s (“OAG”) acceptance of service on behalf of certain Defendants.4 (ECF No. 24 25 1 (ECF No. 27) (Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s screening order). 26 2 (ECF No. 25) (Court’s screening order). 27 3 (ECF No. 71) (Plaintiff’s “response” to the OAG’s acceptance of service). 1 86). In that “response,” Plaintiff seeks to dismiss his claims against Defendant S. McCracklin. 2 (ECF No. 71). Plaintiff now requests to dismiss his claims against Nurse Penny. (ECF No. 86). 3 However, to the extent Plaintiff wishes to abandon any of his claims, he may do so in an amended 4 complaint or by stipulating to dismissal of those claims. The Court has already provided Plaintiff 5 instructions regarding moving to amend his complaint in its prior order. (ECF No. 84). The 6 Court thus denies Plaintiff’s motion to “add Nurse Penny.” (ECF No. 86). 7 C. Motion for leave to file exhibit under seal (ECF No. 87). 8 Plaintiff’s document is filed as a “motion for leave to file exhibit under seal.” (ECF No. 9 87). However, it appears to be a notice to the Court that he has deposited his “ex parte motion to 10 file exhibit under seal” in the High Desert State Prison’s legal mail system. (ECF No. 87). To 11 the extent Plaintiff intends his filing to be a motion, he has not included any argument 12 demonstrating good cause to seal his document. See Nevada Local Rule 7-2(a) (explaining that 13 all motions must be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities); see Center for Auto 14 Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (2016) (explaining that a party seeking to 15 seal judicial records bears the burden of showing good cause or compelling reasons to do so). 16 Because Plaintiff’s filing does not appear to be a motion, and to the extent that it is, does not seek 17 any actionable relief or provide arguments and authority for that relief, the Court denies it. 18 D. Motion in support of response (ECF No. 88). 19 Plaintiff moves to supplement his objection5 to interested party Nevada Department of 20 Corrections’ (“NDOC”) motion to supplement6 its opposition7 to Plaintiff’s emergency motion 21 for preliminary injunction.8 (ECF No. 88). However, the Court has already denied Plaintiff’s 22 emergency motion for preliminary injunction and denied NDOC’s motion to supplement. (ECF 23 No. 91). So, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion “in support” (ECF No. 88) as moot. 24 25 5 (ECF No. 72) (Plaintiff’s objection to NDOC’s motion to supplement). 26 6 (ECF No. 56) (NDOC’s motion to supplement). 27 7 (ECF No. 46) (NDOC’s opposition to Plaintiff’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction). 1 E. Motion requesting that service be made by US Marshals (ECF No. 93). 2 Plaintiff moves for the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to effect service on 3 Defendants for whom the OAG has not accepted service and for whom the OAG has provided 4 last-known-address information under seal. (ECF No. 93). Because he is proceeding in forma 5 pauperis, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the USMS for service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). The Court 6 grants Plaintiff’s motion and will order service below.9 7 F. Emergency motion for leave to modify/amend (ECF No. 94). 8 Plaintiff moves to supplement his emergency motion for preliminary injunction.10 (ECF 9 No. 94). Plaintiff attaches an amended version of his emergency motion for preliminary 10 injunction. (ECF No. 94 at 10-47). However, the Court has already denied Plaintiff’s emergency 11 motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 91). So, the Court denies his motion to supplement 12 (ECF No. 94) as moot. 13 G. Emergency motion for leave to modify/amend (ECF No. 96). 14 Plaintiff’s document is filed as an “emergency motion for leave to modify/amend.” (ECF 15 No. 96). However, the filing appears to be a notice informing the Court that Plaintiff submitted 16 an exhibit to the High Desert State Prison’s internal legal mail system and intended that exhibit to 17 be attached to his previously-filed emergency motion.11 To the extent Plaintiff intends this filing 18 to be a motion, he has not included any argument regarding what he is seeking to modify/amend, 19 why, or what authority supports that request. See Nevada Local Rule 7-2(a) (explaining that all 20 motions must be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities). In any event, because 21 this filing appears to be a notice and, to the extent it is a motion, seeks relief related to a motion 22 that the Court has already denied, the Court denies it as moot. 23 24 9 Plaintiff is reminded that his deadline to perfect service is contained in the Court’s prior order, 25 which was entered on September 5, 2024. (ECF No. 50 at 6) (stating “service must be perfected within 90 days from the entry date of this order consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 4(m).”). If Plaintiff needs additional time for service, he must file the appropriate motion. 27 10 (ECF No. 35) (Plaintiff’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction). 1 H. Motion notice overlooked details of ECF 94. 2 Plaintiff moves to supplement his emergency motion for leave to modify/amend12 his 3 emergency motion for preliminary injunction.13 (ECF No. 98). However, as outlined above, the 4 Court has already denied Plaintiff’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 91). 5 And by this order, the Court has denied Plaintiff’s emergency motion for leave to modify/amend. 6 So, the Court denies his motion “notice overlooked details” (ECF No. 98) as moot. 7 II. Admonishment. 8 Plaintiff is advised that his habit of filing new motions that seek to improperly supplement 9 or amend motions and documents he has already filed will not increase the speed with which the 10 Court is able to proceed in this case. This Court has a heavy docket. Plaintiff’s case is just one of 11 hundreds before the Court. Thus, Plaintiff’s repetitive (and borderline frivolous) filings only slow 12 the pace of this litigation by requiring the Court’s attention and consideration of secondary 13 matters instead of the central issues in this case. 14 The Court has already noted that Plaintiff’s motions often “inappropriately duplicate relief 15 that [he] seeks in other motions, and they needlessly repeat the legal and factual points of [his] 16 underlying claims.” (ECF No. 84 at 3). In doing so, the Court warned Plaintiff that “the Court 17 may strike any future motion he files that fails to comply with these basic requirements without 18 further prior notice.” (Id. at 4). Despite this prior admonition, Plaintiff’s motions still duplicate 19 relief and needlessly repeat legal and factual points that Plaintiff has already made. The Court 20 again warns Plaintiff that it will strike future motions that improperly “supplement” or duplicate 21 already-filed motions. 22 23 24 25 26 27 12 (ECF No. 94) (Plaintiff’s emergency motion to modify/amend). 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, 94, 2 96, and 98) are denied. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for service (ECF No. 93) is 4 granted. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to issue 6 summonses to Willie Clayton, Emanuel Flores, William Rivera, David Rodriguez, Omar 7 Sanchez, Ryan Schmall, and Nathan Stuart. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send the 9 USMS the following for service: 10 • Seven copies of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 26); 11 • the summonses issued to Willie Clayton, Emanuel Flores, William Rivera, David 12 Rodriguez, Omar Sanchez, Ryan Schmall, and Nathan Stuart; 13 • seven copies of the Court’s order screening Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 14 (ECF No. 25); 15 • a copy of this order. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 17 seven copies of the Form USM-285. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must complete one USM-285 form for each 19 Defendant whose address has been filed under seal (totaling seven USM-285 forms). Plaintiff 20 must fill out the blank space asking for the defendant’s address by specifying that Defendants’ 21 addresses are filed under seal in Case No. 2:24-cv-00790-ART-DJA at ECF No. 77. 22 23 24 25 26 /// 27 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will have until November 15, 2024 to send 2 his completed Form USM-285 to the USMS for service. Within twenty-one days after receiving 3 a copy of the Form USM-285 back from the USMS showing whether service has been 4 accomplished, Plaintiff must file a notice with the Court identifying whether the Defendants were 5 served. If Plaintiff wishes to have service again attempted on an unserved Defendant, Plaintiff 6 must file a motion with the Court identifying that Defendant and specifying a more detailed name 7 and/or address for that Defendant or whether some other manner of service should be attempted. 8 9 DATED: October 25, 2024 10 11 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27