ORDER

PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Frederick Omoyuma Silver's Response (ECF No. 51) to the court's Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 48). This Response is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.

This case involves Plaintiff's allegations of civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with regard to a child support order entered by the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action by paying the standard filing fee and submitting a Complaint (ECF No. 1). See also Am. Compl. (ECF No. 8).

Plaintiff requested and received leave of the court under LR IC 2-1(b) to use the CM/ECF system in order to file, access, and electronically serve documents in this case. Jan. 18, 2019 Order (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff timely filed a Notice of Completion of ECF Tutorial (ECF No. 11) and began filing on the CM/ECF system. However, to date, Plaintiff has received 17 error notices (ECF Nos. 16, 18, 19, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 44, 66, 69, 72, 73, 78, 87, 89, 103) from the clerk's office advising Plaintiff that his filings violate the Local Rules of Practice and instructing him to comply with the rules regarding electronic filing and/or to refile documents. See generally LR Part IC — Electronic Case Filing. The clerk's office has also modified eight docket entry's based on Plaintiff's failure to follow the correct CM/ECF filing procedures. ECF Nos. 52, 54, 55, 61, 75, 76, 94, 100.

Because of Plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with the Local Rules of Practice and directions received from the clerk's office to remedy his errors, the court entered and Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 48) ("OSC") requiring Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should not revoke his authorization to file and serve documents in this case through the CM/ECF system. The OSC warned that a failure to timely respond by March 22, 2019, would result in immediate revocation of Plaintiff's authorization to file and serve documents in this case through the CM/ECF system. Id. at 2.

In response to the OSC, Plaintiff claims a magistrate judge lacks authority and jurisdiction in this case. ECF No. 51. Plaintiff also objected to the undersigned's Order (ECF No. 49) denying numerous motions. Plaintiff maintains that the OSC and order are "absolutely nullities and void ab initio." ECF No. 51 at 2 (emphasis omitted). United States District Judge Andrew P. Gordon overruled Plaintiff's objection, holding that Plaintiff "is incorrect in his assertion that Magistrate Judge Leen cannot issue valid orders in this case." Order (ECF No. 63). The order cautioned that Plaintiff's "failure to abide by Judge Leen's or my orders may result in sanctions, including revoking his authorization to serve and file documents in this case through the CM/ECF system, monetary sanctions, or case-ending sanctions." Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).

Electronic filing by pro se parties is a privilege granted by the court. See LR IC 2-1, Electronic Filing System Filers: Registration, Training, and Responsibilities. It is well-settled that courts have the inherent power to manage the dockets in their cases. See United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998)). Filing multiple motions requesting the same relief is an abusive litigation tactic that taxes the resources of the court and all of the parties to this lawsuit. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that sanctions may be imposed on an unrepresented party who signs a paper that is either filed with the court for an improper purpose or is frivolous. See Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 439 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding Rule 11 sanctions because a party's second motion to compel largely duplicated the first) (citing Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.3d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc)). Once a motion is filed, filing a duplicate motion will not speed up the court's review of a movant's request since motions are generally addressed in the order which they were filed. To the contrary, filing duplicate motions increases the court's workload and generally delays decision while a new round of responses and reply deadlines run.

The court has considered Plaintiff's conduct in this case and the entire record. Since the OSC was entered March 8, 2019, Plaintiff has continued to file documents incorrectly on the court's docket. The clerk's office has issued eight additional notices of error and modified the docket another eight times. ECF No. 52, 54, 55, 61, 66, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 87, 89, 94, 100 103.1 Furthermore, many of his filings contain duplicate requests for relief. Plaintiff is again warned that continued motion practice requesting relief that has already been denied or making frivolous, unsupported requests may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this case. Plaintiff's voluminous and repetitive filings, failure to comply with the court's electronic filing procedures, and failure to comply with the Local Rules of Practice and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have all impeded the administration of justice in this case, wasted judicial resources, and are an abuse of his electronic filing privileges.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: