BACON v. REYES, 2:12-cv-01222-JCM-VCF. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20130628c74
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2013
Summary: ORDER [ Ex Parte Motion to Extend Prison Inmate Copy Work Limit (#89)] CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Pro Se Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Extend Prison Inmate Copy Work Limit filed on June 7, 2013. (#89). Plaintiff seeks to extend his prison copywork limit to $500.00. Id. No opposition has been filed. Discussion: Under Local Rule 7-5(b), "[a]ll ex parte motions, applications or requests shall contain a statement showing good cause why the matter was submitte
Summary: ORDER [ Ex Parte Motion to Extend Prison Inmate Copy Work Limit (#89)] CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Pro Se Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Extend Prison Inmate Copy Work Limit filed on June 7, 2013. (#89). Plaintiff seeks to extend his prison copywork limit to $500.00. Id. No opposition has been filed. Discussion: Under 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..
More
ORDER
[Ex Parte Motion to Extend Prison Inmate Copy Work Limit (#89)]
CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Pro Se Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Extend Prison Inmate Copy Work Limit filed on June 7, 2013. (#89). Plaintiff seeks to extend his prison copywork limit to $500.00. Id. No opposition has been filed.
Discussion:
Under 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." In Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Prison Inmate Copy Work Limit (#89), Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause why his Motion should be deemed ex parte. LR 7-5(c) provides that motions "may be submitted ex parte only for compelling reasons, and not for unopposed . . . motions." Plaintiff has not given any reason why he needs to file his Motion ex parte. Thus, he has not adequately met the need to file his Motion ex parte.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Extend Prison Inmate Copy Work Limit (#89) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file his motion with notice to all parties.
Source: Leagle
