Opinion
2:22-cv-01661-CDS-VCF
11-01-2022
Arah Muaba Bey, Plaintiff v. Nevada Power Company, Lisa M. Scott, Defendants
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND STRIKING AFFIDAVIT
[ECF NOS. 5, 6]
CRISTINA D. SILVA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On October 11, 2022, the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Ferenbach issued an order denying without prejudice plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF No. 4. That order directed plaintiff to either file the IFP long form application as directed and with instructions or pay the full filing fee for filing a civil action. Id. On October 12, 2022, plaintiff filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's order. ECF No. 5.
The Local Rules provide that any party wishing to object to the magistrate judge's order on a pretrial matter must file and serve specific written objections, and the deadline to file and serve any objections to a magistrate judge's order is 14 days after service of the order. See ECF No. 4 at 4 (citing LR 1B 3-1 and 3-2). A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case under LR IB 1-3, when it has been shown the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Courts must liberally construe documents filed by pro se litigants and afford them the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Even a liberal construction of plaintiff's objection, however, does not demonstrate that the magistrate judge's order was clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. Instead, plaintiff asserts in conclusory fashion, and without citation to authority, that the magistrate judge lacks the authority to order the petitioner to fill out the IFP long form. ECF No. 5 at 2. Plaintiff's assertion is incorrect. Local Rule IB 1-3 provides that “[a] magistrate judge may hear and finally determine any pretrial matter not specifically enumerated as an exception in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). LR IB 1-3. Reviewing IFP applications and related filings is a pre-trial matter that a magistrate judge may hear and determine. Accordingly, I overrule plaintiff's objections and affirm Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's order that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) be denied without prejudice. ECF No. 4. Bey must either (1) file the long form application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in my order or (2) pay the full fee for filing a civil action by November 10, 2022. Id.
I also note that plaintiff was cautioned that continuing to file duplicative and/or frivolous lawsuits may result in adverse consequences, including possible sanctions or a finding that he is a vexatious litigant. Id. at 4. In Bey's objection, he asserts that he “has never filed a lawsuit prior to this one.” ECF No. 5 at 2. While that may be the case, Bey has previously removed cases to this district and failed to pursue them. I take judicial notice of: (1) State of Nevada, et al v. Bey, 2:18-cv-01806-APG-PAL (Bey refuses to pay a filing fee or submit an IFP application after removing traffic court case to federal court); (2) State of Nevada Superior Court, et al v. Bey, 2:18-cv-01807-JAD-VCF (same); (3) State of Nevada v. Bey, 2:21-cv-00460-APG-NJK (third unsuccessful attempt to remove traffic case to federal court).
Plaintiff also filed a document titled “notice and affidavit of bias.” The filing appears to be a motion for Magistrate Judge Ferenbach to recuse himself from this case and I liberally construed it as such. See generally ECF No. 6. However, the filing is unsupported by points and authorities supporting the recusal request. Id. Local Rule 7-2(a) requires that “[a]ll motions- unless made during a hearing or trial-must be in writing . . . and must be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities.” LR 7-2(a). Because Bey's motion does not comply with the local rules, I hereby strike the document (ECF No. 6). LR IA 10-1 (“The court may strike any document that does not conform to an applicable provision of these rules or any Federal Rule of Civil or Criminal Procedure.”).
V. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's objections [ECF No. 5] are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must comply with the magistrate judge's order (ECF No. 4) requiring plaintiff to either (1) file the long form application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in my order or (2) plaintiff must pay the full fee for filing a civil action on or before, November 10, 2022.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's notice filing [ECF No. 6] be stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.