Pough v. Bean

D. Nevada

Pough v. Bean

DecidedJanuary 7, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02098

StatusUnknown

This text of Pough v. Bean (Pough v. Bean) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pough v. Bean, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 JERRY D. POUGH, Case No. 2:24-cv-02098-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 JEREMY BEAN, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff submitted an incomplete application to proceed in forma 10 pauperis (“IFP”) together with initiating documents entitled “Motion for Production of all Illegally 11 Seized Property” and “Petition for Writ of Injunction.” ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 1-2. Plaintiff did not 12 submit a Complaint. On November 19, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a complete IFP 13 and a Complaint no later than December 27, 2024. ECF No. 3. Upon review of ECF Nos. 1 and 14 7, Plaintiff filed a complete IFP but did not file a Complaint. Instead, Plaintiff filed a Motion to 15 Extend Copy Work Limit and a Motion to be Excused from Using the High Desert State Prison’s 16 E-Filing Service. ECF Nos. 4, 6. As explained in the Court’s prior Order, to initiate a civil action 17 in federal court, Plaintiff must file a Complaint on the approved form provided by the Court. See 18 Local Rule LSR 2-1. The Court grants Plaintiff until February 7, 2025, to file a Complaint. 19 The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend his prison copy work limit. ECF No. 4. An 20 inmate has no constitutional right to free photocopying. Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th 21 Cir. 1991). Under Nevada Department of Correction’s (“NDOC”) administrative regulation 22 722.01(7)(E), inmates “can only accrue a maximum of $100 debt for copy work expenses for all 23 cases, not per case.” In this district, courts have ordered a prison to provide limited photocopying 24 when it is necessary for an inmate to provide copies to the court and other parties. Allen v. Clark 25 Cnty. Det. Ctr., Case No. 2:10-cv-00857-RLH, 2011 WL 886343, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2011). 26 Here, Plaintiff has not properly initiated a case in this Court because he has not submitted a 27 Complaint. As such, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a need to extend his copy work limit. 28 1 Moreover, when Plaintiff uses the prison’s e-filing system, he retains the original copy of his 2 document. 3 Plaintiff submitted a 15-page motion that seeks to be excused from HDSP’s e-filing system. 4 ECF No. 6. Plaintiff’s Motion is difficult to understand but he seems to outline issues with the 5 HDSP’s law librarian and the library’s deficiencies. See id. The Court denies the Motion at this 6 time. However, the Court notes that the HDSP law librarian returned mail as undeliverable for 7 Plaintiff with a notation that Plaintiff was “not @ HDSP.” ECF No. 9. A review of NDOC’s 8 inmate database reveals Plaintiff is at HDSP. The Court will send Plaintiff copies of this Order 9 and docket sheet both through U.S. mail and HDSP’s e-filing system. If Plaintiff continues to have 10 issues with HDSP’s e-filing system, he may raise this issue again. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than February 7, 2025, Plaintiff 12 must file a Complaint on this Court’s approved form. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to file a Complaint on or before February 7, 14 2025, will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action without prejudice. A dismissal without 15 prejudice allows Plaintiff to file his case with the Court, under a new case number, when he is able 16 to file a Complaint and comply with LSR 2-1 and file a complete application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis or pay the required filing fee. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Extend Copy Work Limit (ECF No. 4) is 19 DENIED. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to be Excused from Using HDSP’s E-filing 21 System (ECF No. 6) is DENIED without prejudice. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court must send to Plaintiff: (1) the 23 approved form for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and instructions; and (2) a copy of the 24 docket sheet.

25 26 27 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court will send Plaintiff as a one-time 2 courtesy copy of this Order, the approved form for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and 3 instructions, and the docket sheet by U.S. mail to Plaintiff at High Desert State Prison, P.O. Box 4 650, Indian Springs, Nevada 89070-0650. 5 DATED this 7th day of January, 2025. 6

7 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 JERRY D. POUGH, Case No. 2:24-cv-02098-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 JEREMY BEAN, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff submitted an incomplete application to proceed in forma 10 pauperis (“IFP”) together with initiating documents entitled “Motion for Production of all Illegally 11 Seized Property” and “Petition for Writ of Injunction.” ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 1-2. Plaintiff did not 12 submit a Complaint. On November 19, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a complete IFP 13 and a Complaint no later than December 27, 2024. ECF No. 3. Upon review of ECF Nos. 1 and 14 7, Plaintiff filed a complete IFP but did not file a Complaint. Instead, Plaintiff filed a Motion to 15 Extend Copy Work Limit and a Motion to be Excused from Using the High Desert State Prison’s 16 E-Filing Service. ECF Nos. 4, 6. As explained in the Court’s prior Order, to initiate a civil action 17 in federal court, Plaintiff must file a Complaint on the approved form provided by the Court. See 18 Local Rule LSR 2-1. The Court grants Plaintiff until February 7, 2025, to file a Complaint. 19 The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend his prison copy work limit. ECF No. 4. An 20 inmate has no constitutional right to free photocopying. Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th 21 Cir. 1991). Under Nevada Department of Correction’s (“NDOC”) administrative regulation 22 722.01(7)(E), inmates “can only accrue a maximum of $100 debt for copy work expenses for all 23 cases, not per case.” In this district, courts have ordered a prison to provide limited photocopying 24 when it is necessary for an inmate to provide copies to the court and other parties. Allen v. Clark 25 Cnty. Det. Ctr., Case No. 2:10-cv-00857-RLH, 2011 WL 886343, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2011). 26 Here, Plaintiff has not properly initiated a case in this Court because he has not submitted a 27 Complaint. As such, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a need to extend his copy work limit. 28 1 Moreover, when Plaintiff uses the prison’s e-filing system, he retains the original copy of his 2 document. 3 Plaintiff submitted a 15-page motion that seeks to be excused from HDSP’s e-filing system. 4 ECF No. 6. Plaintiff’s Motion is difficult to understand but he seems to outline issues with the 5 HDSP’s law librarian and the library’s deficiencies. See id. The Court denies the Motion at this 6 time. However, the Court notes that the HDSP law librarian returned mail as undeliverable for 7 Plaintiff with a notation that Plaintiff was “not @ HDSP.” ECF No. 9. A review of NDOC’s 8 inmate database reveals Plaintiff is at HDSP. The Court will send Plaintiff copies of this Order 9 and docket sheet both through U.S. mail and HDSP’s e-filing system. If Plaintiff continues to have 10 issues with HDSP’s e-filing system, he may raise this issue again. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than February 7, 2025, Plaintiff 12 must file a Complaint on this Court’s approved form. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to file a Complaint on or before February 7, 14 2025, will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action without prejudice. A dismissal without 15 prejudice allows Plaintiff to file his case with the Court, under a new case number, when he is able 16 to file a Complaint and comply with LSR 2-1 and file a complete application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis or pay the required filing fee. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Extend Copy Work Limit (ECF No. 4) is 19 DENIED. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to be Excused from Using HDSP’s E-filing 21 System (ECF No. 6) is DENIED without prejudice. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court must send to Plaintiff: (1) the 23 approved form for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and instructions; and (2) a copy of the 24 docket sheet.

25 26 27 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court will send Plaintiff as a one-time 2 courtesy copy of this Order, the approved form for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and 3 instructions, and the docket sheet by U.S. mail to Plaintiff at High Desert State Prison, P.O. Box 4 650, Indian Springs, Nevada 89070-0650. 5 DATED this 7th day of January, 2025. 6

7 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pough v. Bean, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pough-v-bean-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack