Chaker v. Richland

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 DARREN D. CHAKER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00348-JAD-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 FELIPA R. RICHLAND, et al., 8 Defendants. [9] 10 Before the Court are Darren Chaker’s Applications to File Under Seal. ECF Nos. 3 and 5. 11 This case commenced in October 2007 with a Registration of a Foreign Judgment against 12 Mr. Chaker. ECF No. 1. The last activity, before Mr. Chaker’s recent documents were filed, was 13 approximately fourteen years ago in August 2008. There is nothing pending before the Court and 14 no reason the Court can discern that prompted Mr. Chaker’s current filings. 15 The district court enjoys “inherent power over the administration of its business.” Spurlock 16 v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Indeed, district courts have the 17 inherent power to strike a party’s submissions other than pleadings. See Metzger v. Hussman, 682 18 F.Supp. 1109 , 1110 (D. Nev. 1988); see also Calkins v. Shapiro & Anderson, L.L.P., Case No. 0519 0815-PHX-ROS, 2005 WL 3434718 , at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2005); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 20 U.S. 32 , 44–45 (1991) (recognizing the district court’s inherent power and discretion to sanction 21 litigants or attorneys). Mr. Chaker’s filings are fugitive documents that are properly struck as they 22 have no relationship to any matter before the Court. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Applications to File Under Seal (ECF Nos. 24 3 and 5) are struck from the record. 25 Dated this 2nd day of May, 2022. [26] 27 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH