Opinions and documents
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6 * * *
7
Case No.: 2-25-cv-01659-RFB-NJK
8 IN RE TIA
ORDER DENYING FRIVOLOUS
9 MOTIONS
10
11 Before the Court are Plaintiff Peter Tia’s Motion to Investigate (ECF No. 18) and Motion for
12 Hearing (ECF No. 22). Because these motions are frivolous, the Court denies them pursuant to its
13 inherent authority to manage its own docket.
14 District courts “possess[ ] inherent powers that are ‘governed not by rule or statue but by the
15 control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
16 expeditious disposition of cases.’” Cahill v. Insider Inc., 131 F.4th 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2025)
17 (quoting Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016)). Amongst other powers, a district court has the
18 inherent “authority ‘to manage . . . [its] dockets and courtroom[ ] with a view toward the efficient
19 and expedient resolution of cases.” Id. (quoting Dietz, 579 U.S. at 47). By virtue of this authority,
20 this Court has the “discretion to weed out frivolous or simply repetitive motions.” Hoffman v.
21 Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); ProDox, LLC v. Pro.
22 Document Servs., Inc., Nos. 24-2409, 24-2753, 24-5646, 24-6013, 2025 WL 2364980 (9th Cir.
23 Aug. 14, 2025) (citation omitted) (same).
24 The Court exercises its discretion to weed out Plaintiff’s frivolous motions, as they are
25 incomprehensible filings in a non-existent case. By way of background, the Court already
26 dismissed this action because Mr. Tia failed to file a proper complaint or address the filing fee in
27 this matter. See generally Order, ECF No. 17 (Oct. 20, 2025); R. & R. 1–2, ECF No. 9 (Sep. 30,
28 2025). To date, Mr. Tia has not complied with these procedural requirements, nor has he sought
1| relief from this Court’s dismissal order. Cf. FED. R. Civ. P. 59(e); id. at 60(b). Instead, he has
2] submitted various materials—ranging from affidavits to notices—which suffer from the same
defects previously identified by Magistrate Judge Koppe. See, e.g., generally Am. Compl., ECF
4] No. 23 (Dec. 18, 2025) (failing to clearly identify defendants). Case in point, Mr. Tia filed two
unintelligible motions which seek an investigation, and/or a hearing, regarding copyright
6| infringement, government corruption, racial violence, theft, fraud, etc. See generally Mot. to
7 | Investigate Courtyard Homeless Res. Ctr., ECF No. 18 (Oct. 22, 2025); Mot. for Hearing, ECF
No. 22 (Dec. 15, 2025). While these motions make passing references to some legal authorities,
9| they do not explain why Plaintiff is entitled to additional procedures in a case that was never
10 | properly initiated—even when they are construed liberally. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342
11 | (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). As such, the Court concludes that these motions are frivolous
12 | and should be denied outright for the sake of Judicial economy.
13 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion to Investigate
14| (ECF No. 18) and Motion for Hearing (ECF No. 22) are DENIED.
15
16 DATED: September 18, 2026.
19 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.