Hewitt v. Vidaurri

Full title: TONY G. HEWITT, Plaintiff, v. RUBEN VIDAURRI, et. al. Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Sep 3, 2013

3:12-cv-00202-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Sep. 3, 2013)

Opinion

3:12-cv-00202-LRH-WGC

09-03-2013

TONY G. HEWITT, Plaintiff, v. RUBEN VIDAURRI, et. al. Defendants.

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING

WILLIAM G. COBB

MINUTES OF THE COURT

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: KATIE OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:

Before the court are two motions filed by Plaintiff. (Docs. # 28, # 29.)

First, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a copy of his first amended complaint. (Doc. # 28.) While Plaintiff references a first amended complaint, he then states that he seeks a copy of his complaint. There is no first amended complaint in this action. However, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED such that the Clerk shall SEND Plaintiff a copy of his complaint (Doc. # 4) at his current address of record.

Second, on May 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a court order to extend his prison copywork limit by $50 to copy medical exhibits in support of his opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment and for an opportunity to review his medical file again. (Doc. # 29.) Plaintiff has since filed a notice of change of address indicating that he is no longer incarcerated within the Nevada Department of Corrections. (See Docs. # 47, # 48.) In addition, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 44.) Because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated within the Nevada Department of Corrections, there is no basis for ordering an extension of any copy work limit. Plaintiff must find a means to fund his litigation as a private citizen. Additionally, Plaintiff appears to have been able to file an opposition and did not make any further request of the court concerning his ability to copy exhibits to support that opposition. A review of his opposition indicates that he was indeed able to file copies of exhibits in support of his motion. (Doc. # 44 at 21-89.) In fact, he filed some forty-nine pages of exhibits, which included copies of some of his medical records. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. # 29) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:___________

Deputy Clerk