Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-02165-JAD-VCF
10-30-2013
GILBERTO CARRILLO, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS GILLESPIE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
(Ex Parte Motion for Additional Copywork
#79)
(Ex Parte Motion for Legal Supplies
Injunction #94)
Before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Gilberto Carrillo's Ex Parte Motion for Additional Copywork (#79) and Ex Parte Motion for Legal Supplies Injunction (#94).
Refers to the Court's docket number.
Plaintiff, who is currently in the Nevada Department of Corrections, filed the present Ex Parte Motion for Additional Copywork requesting $45.00 to make sufficient copies of documents for opposing counsel and the Court. (#79). He filed the present Ex Parte Motion for Legal Supplies Injunction requesting legal supplies "necessary to accommodate the court and discovery requested by counsels of the defendants." (#94).
Ex parte motions are filed with the Court but not served upon the opposing party. LR7-5(a). Pursuant to Local Rule 7-5(b), "[a]ll ex parte motions, applications or requests shall contain a statement showing good cause why the matter was submitted to the Court without notice to all parties." Motions may be submitted ex parte "only for compelling reasons." LR 7-5(c). Defendant has not provided the court with a statement in either motion demonstrating "compelling reasons" why the motions were filed ex parte. Absent a LR7-5(b) statement, the Court will not consider these motions on an ex parte basis. Thus, the Court denies both motions without prejudice.
The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is pro se and thus should be held to less stringent standards than attorneys, see Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam), but the Court will not deny opposing counsel the opportunity to respond to a motion when a party does not provide "compelling reasons" for denying that opportunity.
Accordingly, and for good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Gilberto Carrillo's Ex Parte Motion for Additional Copywork (#79) and Ex Parte Motion for Legal Supplies Injunction (#94) be DENIED without prejudice.
____________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE