Mingo v. Willcoxin

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 JONATHAN MINGO, Case No. 3:25-cv-00493-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 6 WILLCOXIN, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Nevada prisoner Jonathan Mingo brings this pro se civil-rights action under 42 10 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while 11 incarcerated at Lovelock Correctional Center. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 7). Mingo filed a complete 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 4). He also filed a notice, letter, a 13 second complaint, exhibits, a declaration, and two motions. (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 11). Mingo’s second motion seeks to “withdraw” his first motion and associated exhibits 15 and declaration. (ECF No. 11). It asks to clarify whether any defendant responded to the 16 first motion because that motion’s docket text says responses were due by January 5, 17 2026. (Id.). And it is couched as an “emergency” motion. (Id.) 18 DISCUSSION 19 “Emergency motions should be rare” and Mingo’s second motion does not 20 constitute an emergency. See LR 7-4. Mingo’s first motion and associated declaration 21 and exhibits contain evidence and discovery questions regarding Mingo’s claims. (ECF 22 Nos. 8, 9, 10). Those matters are not currently before the Court because it has not yet 23 screened Mingo’s operative complaint. Mingo was instructed when he filed this lawsuit 24 that “[t]he parties may not file evidence with the Court until the course of litigation brings 25 the evidence into question.” (ECF No. 2 at 3). Because Mingo’s first motion, exhibits, and 26 declaration were prematurely filed, the Court grants his motion to withdraw those fugitive 27 documents. 1 Mingo’s second motion also seeks to clarify the “Responses due” deadline that 2 was generated on the docket for his first motion. Mingo is advised that docket text stating 3 when responses or replies are due is automatically generated whenever certain 4 documents like motions are filed. Those deadlines do not apply to the Court. And unless 5 otherwise ordered, those deadlines apply to the parties only after they have appeared in 6 a lawsuit. No defendant filed a response to Mingo’s first motion because no defendant 7 has appeared in this lawsuit or was served with any filing herein. And service and 8 appearances will not happen until after the Court screens Mingo’s operative complaint. 9 As Mingo was advised when he filed this lawsuit, “[t]he Court will order service 10 upon defendants when it is time to do so.” (ECF No. 2 at 3). That time has not come yet. 11 The Court clarifies that because Mingo submitted signed complaints and filed a complete 12 in forma pauperis application, the next step in this lawsuit is for the Court to enter an order 13 screening his operative complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (See id. at 2 at 1 (informing 14 Mingo that the Court will review his “complaint before docketing and service of 15 defendants”)). Mingo is advised that the Court will screen his operative complaint in the 16 normal course. 17 Mingo is cautioned that filing repetitive motions or seeking relief about matters that 18 are not pending before the Court will not increase the speed with which the Court is able 19 to proceed in this case. The Court has a heavy docket. Filing repetitive or premature 20 motions are abusive litigation practices that strain the Court’s resources and generally 21 delays a decision in the case. This Court is sensitive to Mingo’s pro se status, but that 22 status is not a license to abuse the litigation process and ignore the rules and orders of 23 this Court. Mingo is cautioned that “[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of 24 procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 25 overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). 26 And because pro se status does not permit litigants to harass others or needlessly clutter 27 already full court dockets, district courts have the inherent power to control their dockets 1 || “restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories 2 || of litigation.” Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999); accord 3 || Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404-05 (9th Cir. 2010) (reiterating 4 || that district courts’ inherent power to control their dockets “includes the power to strike 5 || items from the docket as a sanction for litigation conduct” and goes “as far as to dismiss 6 || entire actions to rein in abusive conduct”). 7 || CONCLUSION 8 It is therefore ordered that Mingo’s emergency motion to withdraw documents and 9 || for clarification (ECF No. 11) is granted in part: Mingo’s first motion and associated 10 || exhibits and declaration (ECF Nos. 8, 9, 10) are considered withdrawn, and the Court 11 || clarifies that no defendant responded to Mingo’s first motion or was required to do so 12 || because the next step in this lawsuit is for the Court to screen Mingo’s operative 13 || complaint. Mingo’s emergency motion to withdraw is denied in all other respects. 14 The Clerk of Court is directed to resend Mingo the advisory letter (ECF No. 2) and 15 || send him a courtesy copy of General Order No. 2021-05 to review. 16 17 DATED: February 24, 2026. CS By 19 UNITED STATES MASISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28