1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Antonio Goodwin, Case No. 2:23-cv-01950-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 AT&T, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Antonio Goodwin’s motion “of a courtesy reminder of 12 document” (ECF No. 160), motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 165), motion “to remove 13 AT&T PDF File re 167 Exhibit” (ECF No. 168), motion “to amend 167 exhibit” (ECF No. 169), 14 motion “to withdraw/remove document 168” (ECF No. 170), and three motions to supplement 15 (ECF Nos. 171, 172, 173). Defendant has either not responded, or is not yet due to respond, to 16 the motions. Nonetheless, because the Court finds that all but one of Plaintiff’s motions lacks a 17 legal basis for the Court to grant them, the Court denies them. 18 In his motion “of a courtesy reminder,” Plaintiff informs the Court that his motions for 19 judgment to be entered in his favor (ECF Nos. 131, 136) have yet to be ruled on. Local Rule IA 20 7-1(a) provides the mechanism by which Plaintiff may inquire into the status of a motion, which 21 is by letter not motion. Plaintiff also informs the Court that he intended the exhibits filed at ECF 22 No. 156 to be filed as exhibits connected to ECF No. 155 and that the Clerk’s office mistakenly 23 filed them separately. But ECF No. 156 is labeled as an exhibit to ECF No. 155, so even if ECF 24 No. 156 was mistakenly filed separately, it is clearly associated with ECF No. 155. There is 25 therefore no ambiguity to correct. Finally, the remainder of Plaintiff’s motion contains rambling 26 arguments about evidence he states he has, his struggles in accessing PACER, and his attempts to 27 file a writ for certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, which arguments seek no 1 Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel asks the Court to appoint him counsel in his 2 appeal. (ECF No. 165). The motion consists only of a title and does not include any points and 3 authorities. See LR 7-2(a). So, the Court denies it. 4 In two motions, Plaintiff seeks to remove ECF No. 167 from the docket, explaining that 5 he intended to file it with the Ninth Circuit and accidentally filed it with this Court. (ECF Nos. 6 168, 169). In a third motion, Plaintiff seeks to remove ECF No. 168, although it appears that he 7 is again referring to ECF No. 167. (ECF No. 170). The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 8 168) in part to the extent it seeks to strike Plaintiff’s erroneously filed exhibit at ECF No. 167, 9 and denies his other two motions (ECF Nos. 169, 170) as duplicative. The Court will strike ECF 10 No. 167 from the docket using its inherent power to control the docket. E.g., Ready Transp., Inc. 11 v. AAR Mfg., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010); Metzger v. Hussman,

, 12 1110-11 (D. Nev. 1988). 13 In two motions, Plaintiff moves to supplement the record with more information about his 14 communications with the Clerk’s Office of the United States Supreme Court. (ECF Nos. 171, 15 173). Plaintiff provides no basis for this supplementation other than perhaps to support his belief 16 that his petition to the United States Supreme Court operated to excuse him from his September 17 25, 2025, deposition. But the Court has already rejected this reasoning. (ECF No. 158). And 18 even if the Court accepted Plaintiff’s supplementation, it would not change the Court’s decision. 19 See LR 7-2(g) (providing that supplementation is not allowed without leave of court granted for 20 good cause). It therefore denies Plaintiff’s motions to supplement. 21 Plaintiff also moves to supplement the record with documents showing that Plaintiff has 22 attempted to file criminal charges against AT&T and its legal administrator in Maryland for 23 AT&T’s allegedly “false” statement that it did not employ Plaintiff. (ECF No. 172). Plaintiff 24 provides no basis for this supplement. See LR 7-2(g). The Court did not request it and does not 25 require it to resolve any pending issues. So, the Court denies it. 26 /// 27 /// 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 160, 165, 169, 170, 2 171, 172, 173) are denied. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 168) is granted in part 4 to the extent it seeks to strike Plaintiff’s erroneously filed exhibit at ECF No. 167. It is denied in 5 all other respects. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to strike ECF 7 No. 167 from the docket. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send a copy of 9 this order to Plaintiff. 10 11 DATED: December 29, 2025 12 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27