OGuinn v. Walsh

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 || ROY O'GUINN, 4 3:20-CV-0273-APG-CLB Plaintiff, 5 V. ORDER 6 || LISA WALSH, et al., Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff has filed multiple affidavits, notices, and/or improper responses which do not || appear to relate to any motion on file. (ECF Nos. 14, 16, 19, 22, 27, 29, 32, & 33). The Court 41 not a repository for the plaintiff's affidavits or evidence. Plaintiff may not file evidence with 42 ||the Court unless it is used to support or oppose a motion. Therefore, ECF Nos. 14, 16, 19, 43 || 22, 27, 29, 32 & 33 are hereby STRICKEN. 14 Plaintiff is further advised that filing new motions or documents that are, in substance, 45 ||identical to documents he has already filed, and/or filing motions seeking “updates” or 46 ||immediate action on pending motions, will not increase the speed with which the court is 47 || able to proceed in this case. The court has a heavy docket. Plaintiff's case is just one of 4g || hundreds before the court. Thus, Plaintiff's repetitive (and borderline frivolous) filings only 49 || Slow the pace of this litigation by requiring the court's attention and consideration of small 209 || and secondary matters instead of the central issues in this case. 24 The court has been lenient because plaintiff is a pro se party. However, this does 22 □□□ give plaintiff a blank check to clutter the docket. See Schenker v. Rowley, No. 3:12-cv- 23 ||00174-LRH-VPC, 2013 WL 321688, at *3-4, 5-6 (D. Nev. Jan. 28, 2013). Plaintiff is warned 24 that his status as an indigent litigant will not dissuade the court from considering sanctions 25 || against him for filing groundless and duplicative motions or other documents. 26 ||DATED: _ May 18, 2021 ‘ 27 UNITED so MAGISTRATE JUDGE