Houston v. Lombardo

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 14, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01685
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 MATTHEW TRAVIS HOUSTON, Case No. 2:22-CV-1685 JCM (DJA)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 REDENTA BLACIC, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Matthew Houston’s motion to set aside this 14 court’s dismissal of the case. (ECF No. 28). 15 The court finds that further briefing on this motion is unnecessary. The motion 16 substantively fails on its face because it is unintelligible. See (ECF No. 28). Even generously 17 construing the motion, as the court does with all filings by pro se litigants, see Erickson v. 18 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), it makes no discernable request for relief. 19 The motion appears to be a document originally filed before Judge Gordon in another 20 matter, and all plaintiff has done is cross out the previous date and case number. (ECF No. 28 at 21 1). It goes on to present a disjointed amalgamation of previously filed documents, none of which 22 have any bearing on plaintiff’s failure to file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis 23 pursuant to Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s previous order. The motion fails to contend with the 24 merits of the judgment it purports to challenge, and this court DENIES it as a result. 25 Despite the fact that judgment was entered and the case was closed on December 14, 26 2022, due to plaintiff’s own failure to file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis, he 27 continues to file plainly frivolous and unintelligible motions in this closed matter. Because these 28 inexplicable and repetitive filings are wasteful of this court’s time and resources, the court 1} directs the clerk to accept no further filings in this closed action save for documents related to any possible appeal. See, e.g., Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 3 | 2010) (holding that district courts have inherent power to control their own dockets). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendant’s motion to set aside dismissal (ECF No. 28) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court is directed to accept no further 8 | filings in this closed action. 9 DATED February 14, 2023. 10 tes 0. Atahtan ll UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

es C. Mahan District Judge _2-