Hatlen v. Cox et al
Filing
57
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 2/21/2013, GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 55 Motion to Stay. Plaintiff's motions 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , and 56 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (See order for additional details.)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
KENNETH HATLEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GREG COX, et. al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:12-cv-00534-LRH (WGC)
MINUTE ORDER
February 21, 2013
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK: KATIE LYNN OGDEN
REPORTER: NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
The following motions filed by Plaintiff are currently pending:
(1) Motion for Injunction, filed November 19, 2012 (Doc. # 13);
(2) Motion for Injunction, filed November 19, 2012 (Doc. # 14);
(3) Motion to Reconsider, filed November 21, 2012 (Doc. # 15);
(4) Motion for Injunction, filed November 26, 2012 (Doc. # 16);
(5) Motion for Injunction, filed December 5, 2012 (Doc. # 18);
(6) Motion to Reconsider, filed December 13, 2012 (Doc. # 25);
(7) Motion for Injunction, filed January 16, 2013 (Doc. # 38);
(8) Motion for Urgent Response, filed February 4, 2013 (Doc. # 46);
(9) Motion for Court Time, filed February 4, 2013 (Doc. # 47);
(10) Motion to Order/Compel Injunction, filed February 4, 2013 (Doc. # 48);
(11) Motion for Objection and Appt for Expert Medical Team, filed February 4, 2013 (Doc. # 49);
(12) Motion for Injunction, filed February 4, 2013 (Doc. # 50);
(13) Motion for Hearing (Doc. # 52), filed February 13, 2013;
(14) Motion to Compel, filed February 14, 2013 (Doc. # 53); and
(15) Motion to Reconsider, filed February 19, 2013 (Doc. # 56).
Also pending before the court is a Request for Status Conference and Motion to Stay
Briefing on Plaintiff’s Motions Pending Status Conference filed by the Attorney General’s Office.
(Doc. # 55.)
MINUTES CONT’D
PAGE 2
Hatlen v. Cox, 3:12-cv-00534-LRH-WGC
February 20, 2013
______________________________________________________________________________
On January 25, 2013, Senior District Court Judge Larry R. Hicks issued a Screening Order
which, among other things, stayed this action for a period of ninety days to allow the parties an
opportunity to settle the dispute before the $350 filing fee is paid, an answer is filed, or discovery
begins. (See Doc. # 44 at 22 ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is deferred
until the time the stay is lifted, and at such time the $350 fee will be payable immediately or in
installments from a prison trust account depending on the court’s determination of the application
to proceed in forma pauperis. The stay will expire on April 25, 2013.
The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada has entered a limited notice of
appearance for purpose of settlement discussions. (Doc. # 54.) In its current motion, the Attorney
General’s Office argues that it should not have to respond to Plaintiff’s pending motions when it
has only entered a limited appearance for purposes of settlement negotiations and the filing fee
has not yet been imposed on Plaintiff. (Doc. # 55.) They assert that Plaintiff is creating an endrun around the imposition of the stay and deferment of the filing fee and seeks to litigate his
claims prematurely. They request a status conference regarding this issue.
The Attorney General’s motion (Doc. # 55) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART. The court agrees that the Attorney General’s Office should not have to respond to
Plaintiff’s pending motions while the stay is in effect. With respect to Plaintiff’s motions that
were filed prior to the time the stay was entered (Docs. ## 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 25, and 38), the
Attorney General’s Office need not file a response. The Attorney General’s Office shall still
comply with the Screening Order (Doc. # 44 at 22 ¶ 2) in filing a report regarding the results of
the 90-day stay. Once that report is filed, if the action is to proceed, the court will issue an order
setting a date for the defendants to file an answer or other response, pursuant to the scheduling
order, and will set a status conference to discuss briefing with respect the motions pending before
entry of the stay.
With respect to the motions Plaintiff filed after entry of the stay (Docs. ## 46, 47, 48, 49,
50, 52, 53, and 56), these motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because they were
filed in violation of the stay. If this action proceeds beyond the 90-day stay, Plaintiff may renew
the appropriate motions at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:
/s/
Deputy Clerk
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
