Warren v. The City of Henderson Nevada

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [3] 4 ALLANNA WARREN, Case No. 2:23-cv-01503-GMN-NJK 5 Plaintiff, ORDER [Docket No. 22, 23] 4 CITY OF HENDERSON, et al., Defendants. [8] 9 Plaintiff filed a complaint and request for additional time on the Docket. See Docket No. 10] 22 (complaint); Docket No. 23 (Plaintiffs request for additional time). 11 District courts have authority to strike an improper filing under their inherent power to control the docket. E.g., Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010); Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110-11 (D. Nev. 1988). “Striking material under the 14] Court’s inherent power is wholly discretionary.” Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Willis, 2016 WL 15 ] 11247554, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2016). Courts also have a general duty to avoid deciding 16] unnecessary issues. See, e.g., U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n vy. Jensen, 835 F.3d 1100 , 1113 n.6 (9th 17] Cir. 2016). In deciding whether to exercise their discretion to strike an improper filing, courts 18] consider whether striking the filing would “further the overall resolution of the action,” and whether the filer has a history of excessive and repetitive filing that have complicated proceedings. Jones v. Skolnik, 2015 WL 685228 , at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 18, 2015). 21 Plaintiffs filings are state court documents unrelated to the instant case. The filings 22|| therefore present no dispute to the Court to resolve in furthering the resolution of this action. 23 Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to strike the filings at Docket Nos. 22, 24] 23. Plaintiff must refrain from filing documents unrelated to the instant case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: January 25, 2024 he. Unt Sie state dg