Greene v. Dzurenda

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

Case No. 2:23-cv-01946-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. [Docket Nos. 11, 19] 9 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 11. Defendants filed a response. Docket No. 16. 13 Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for clarification. Docket No. 19. No 14 response was filed. 15 The Court begins with Defendants’ motion for clarification (Docket No. 19), which 16 questions whether Plaintiff’s earlier motion for judge’s ruling (Docket No. 17) is a reply brief to 17 the motion for sanctions (Docket No. 11) or a separate motion. Docket No. 19 at 3-5. The Court 18 interprets the subject portion1 of that earlier filing to be a reply brief and has considered it in 19 rendering the ruling below. Defendants’ motion for clarification will be granted to that effect. 20 As to the motion for sanctions, Plaintiff alleges that defense counsel engaged in 21 sanctionable conduct by coordinating with local government attorneys, who filed a motion in state 22 court to amend Plaintiff’s criminal judgment. See, e.g., Docket No. 11 at 10-12; see also Docket 23 No. 17 at 2-3. District courts do not generally have the power to sanction conduct that occurred 24 in a different court in a different case. See Trullis v. Barton, 107 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 1995); 25 see also 8Speed8, Inc. v. Snell & Wilmer, LLP, 2018 WL 1230527, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 9, 2018). 26 Plaintiff has failed to provide legal authority that this Court has the authority to impose sanctions 27 1 The Court expresses no opinion on the issue of consolidation that is also raised in Docket 28 No. 17. 1} for a filing in a different case in state court.?, Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown any Rule 11 2|| violation occurring in this case in this Court. Plamtiff’s motion for sanctions will be denied. 3 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Docket No. 11) DENIED and Defendants’ motion for clarification (Docket No. 19) is GRANTED as stated 5] above. 7 Dated: December 6, 2024

Nancy J. Koppe,\, 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27); ———___ ? In light of this ruling, the Court does not opine on the arguments as to the propriety of the District Attorney’s state court motion.