Wheeler v. Gallagher Insurance Companies

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Antonio Wheeler, Case No. 2:24-cv-00671-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. and 8 Report and Recommendation Gallagher Insurance Companies; Transdev 9 U.S., Inc.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend two-year time frame (ECF No. 9), motion 13 for pro se litigant to file electronically (ECF No. 10), motion for leave to proceed in forma 14 pauperis (ECF No. 11), and motion for free copies (ECF No. 12), all of which are identical. Also 15 before the court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 13). 16 In his motions (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 12), Plaintiff lists seven case numbers and asks 17 the Court to extend his “2 year time frame from all cases” so that he can prepare for them by 18 gathering evidence. Plaintiff also asks the Court to reopen any closed cases and grant his in 19 forma pauperis application in all of his cases. Plaintiff also appears to seek leave to file 20 electronically in all of his cases. He also requests free copies, although he does not identify the 21 documents he seeks. 22 The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to extend two-year time frame because Plaintiff does 23 not identify the two-year timeframe at issue. (ECF No. 9). Which rules the Court employs in 24 analyzing an extension of time depends on the deadline or timeframe the party seeks to extend. 25 So, without an explanation about what timeframe Plaintiff seeks to extend, the Court cannot 26 conduct the proper analysis. 27 /// 1 The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to file electronically. (ECF No. 10). As a preliminary 2 matter, it is not entirely clear if Plaintiff seeks leave to file electronically or consents to receive 3 documents by email, or both. Plaintiff asks, “[p]lease grant my IFP all [sic] all cases and E-Doc 4 Requesting to file my response’s [sic] along with notifications sent updating email address from 5 antoniomwheeler18@gmail.com to the updated email starmanagement725@gmail.com.”1 In any 6 event, leave to file electronically is limited to each “specific case.” See Nevada Local Rule2 IC 2- 7 1(b). And this specific case is currently closed. So, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion without 8 prejudice. If this recommendation is accepted and Plaintiff’s case is reopened, he may move to 9 file electronically then. 10 The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for copies. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff does not identify 11 the documents he seeks, so the Court cannot grant his motion. And the Court ordinarily cannot 12 provide free copies even to indigent plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis as the in forma 13 pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not authorize the Court to pay the costs for an indigent 14 litigant’s general copy requests. See Jackson v. Philson, No. 3:20-cv-00009-GMN-CLB, 2020 15 WL 9888358, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 28, 2020). 16 The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to be a 17 motion to reopen his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and recommends granting 18 it. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff states, “if case is closed please reopen so I can response…” and “I’ll 19 like to respond and reopen cases.” Courts liberally construe pro se filings. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 20 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). And, in an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit has 21 liberally construed a pro se movant’s motion to reopen a case as one arising under Federal Rule 22 of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Wade v. Gilliland, No. 21-17007, 2023 WL 4044421, at *1 (9th 23 Cir. June 16, 2023) (unpublished). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), a court may 24

25 1 Plaintiff’s email address has been updated on the docket. However, because it appears that his 26 email address on the docket contains a typo, the Court will order it corrected. 27 2 This refers to the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which can be found online at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-information/rules-and- 1 relieve a party from a final judgment for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. 2 Plaintiff explains that he was not aware of certain timeframes due to his homelessness. The Court 3 considers this to be excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). Plaintiff 4 has also filed his motion less than a year after his case was dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 60(c)(1). So, the Court recommends granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 6 pauperis, (ECF No. 11), which it construes as a motion to reopen the case, and reopening this 7 case.3 8 The Court also recommends granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 9 (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff explains that he has no income, no property, and no debts because he is 10 homeless. And Plaintiff’s application appears complete and accurate. 11 12 ORDER 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to extend two-year timeframe 14 (ECF No. 9) is denied. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to file electronically (ECF No. 10) 16 is denied. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for free copies (ECF No. 12) is 18 denied. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to update 20 Plaintiff’s email address on the docket to starmanagement725@gmail.com. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 22 a copy of this order and report and recommendation. 23 24 25 26 27 3 Plaintiff asks the Court to reopen all of his cases and grant his in forma pauperis applications in all of his cases. But he provides no authority or rationale for this request. So, the Court confines 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in 3 || forma pauperis (ECF No. 11), which the Court construes as a motion to reopen the case, be 4 || granted. 5 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma 6 || pauperis (ECF No. 13) be granted. 7 8 NOTICE 9 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 10 || in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within (14) days after service of this Notice. The 11 || Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived 12 || due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 13 || (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986). The Ninth Circuit has also held that (1) failure to 14 || file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the 15 || objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual 16 || issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); 17 || Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 18 19 DATED: March 17, 2025, ) ‘ ~ 20 ON O DANIEL J. ALBREGTS {4 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28