OGuinn v. Walsh

Opinion

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