Hernandez v. Dzurenda

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * FERNANDO NAVARRO HERNANDEZ, Case No. 3:24-cv-00001-ART-CLB 4 Plaintiff ORDER RE ECF NOS. 41 AND 42 5 v. DZURENDA, et al., 7 Defendants.

8 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Fernando Navarro Hernandez’s (“Hernandez”) “request for the latest official sample forms of the FRCP” and “motion for an order ordering the Defendants to correct the filing deficiency of sealed Exhibit B.” (ECF Nos. 41, 42.)

11 The Court addresses each motion in turn.

12 First, the Court understands Hernandez’s request at ECF No. 41 to be a request for a copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the sample forms of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See ECF Nos. 41.) However, it is not the Court’s obligation to provide litigants, even indigent ones, with copy services. Moreover, the Court is may does not provide litigants legal advice. Hernandez must request such forms from the law library, not the Court and this motion, (ECF No. 41), is denied.

18 Second, the Court understands his motion at ECF No. 42 as a request to order the Defendants to correct a filing deficiency within the sealed exhibits. (See ECF No. 42.) To the extent the Court understands the motion, the Court does not find Defendants have made an improper filing or there are any deficiencies with the sealed exhibit. Therefore, this motion, (ECF No. 42), is also denied.

23 The Court acknowledges Hernandez’s status as a pro se litigant and is understanding to the issues he may face as an inmate. However, as a pro se litigant, Hernandez is held to less stringent standards that any other litigant appearing before the Court. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Hernandez is bound by the same rules of procedures that govern other litigants and the Court will not tolerate continued improper filings. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants 1| must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 2| 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[P]ro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record.”) Therefore, 4) Hernandez is cautioned that any further motions filed with the Court must be proper and 5 For the foregoing reasons, Hernandez’s motions, (ECF Nos. 41 and 42), are 6| DENIED.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 DATED: July 29, 2025 » 10 UNITED savin JUDGE -2-