Muric-Dorado v. LVMPD

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * RAMON MURIC-DORADO, Case No. 2:18-cv-01184-JCM-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. LVMPD, et al., 8 Defendants.

10 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s document titled “Given Judicial Notice and Request for Considerations of ‘The Prison Mailbox Rule’ Provisions.” ECF No. 55. A response to this Motion was filed by Defendants on March 11, 2020, with service on Plaintiff, by mail, on that same date.

13 No reply was filed by Plaintiff.

14 The Court understands Plaintiff’s frustration with his delayed receipt of documents mailed by Defendants as well as those mailed by the Court. That said, the Court notes that Defendants are required by Local Rule to file all documents electronically, which, under other circumstances, would provide Plaintiff with instant notice of such filings. Likewise, the Court’s orders, all of which are filed electronically, would, under other circumstances, give Plaintiff instant access to such orders.

19 The Court has no power to change the circumstances here as Plaintiff is incarcerated.

20 As Defendants properly identify, the prison mailbox rule is designed to assist prisoners who have limited ability to monitor court filings or ensure that the Clerk of Court receives the prisoner’s filings in a timely manner. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-01 (1988). This rule, however, imposes no specific obligations on Defendants or on the Court. Nonetheless, the Court does take Plaintiff’s incarceration into consideration when determining the timeliness of Plaintiff’s filings.

25 The Court also reviews the certificate of service attached to each filing by Defendants to ensure documents are mailed on the date they are filed. So far, the Court finds no evidence that Defendants have delayed mailing any documents to Plaintiff. The Court also expressly orders the Clerk of Court 1 In the future, if Plaintiff believes he was prejudiced due to the late receipt of a document filed by Defendants or the Court, or believes he was prejudiced by the Court’s failure to timely receive a document Plaintiff filed, Plaintiff may notify the Court through a filing providing the facts supporting Plaintiff’s belief and a statement seeking relief. A review of the docket to date does not evidence any prejudice to Plaintiff by virtue of late filings or late receipt by Plaintiff of filings by the Court or Defendants.

7 Accordingly, and with due consideration given to Plaintiff’s concerns, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Consideration of the Prison Mailbox Rule (ECF No. 55) is DENIED.

10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at: 12 Ramon Muric-Dorado, #77774 High Desert State Prison 13 P.O. Box 650 Indian Springs, NV 89070 15 DATED: March 27, 2020 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE