9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 roa vol 2 01168 60317 01896

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

1/500

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

ZACHARY COUGHLIN,Plaintiff,vs.WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ET AL,Defendants

Sup. Ct. Case No. 60302Case No. CV11-01896Dept. 6

RECORD ON APPEAL

APPELLANTZachary CoughlinP.O. Box 60952Reno, NV 89506

VOLUME 2 OF 5DOCUMENTS

RESPONDENTGary Fuller, Esq. for Committee to AidAbused Women100 W. Liberty Street, Suite 800Reno, NV 89501Brian Gonsalves, Esq. for CrisisInterventionP.O. Box 907Kings Beach, CA 96143Joseph P Garin, Esq. Shannon DNordstrom Esq for Washoe LegalServices; Paul Elcano; Todd Torvinen;Karen Sabo; Jon Sasses; MarcAshley; Kathy Breckenridge; CarynSternlight9080 West Post Rd., Ste. 100Las Vegas, NV 89148

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

2/500V2 1

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

3/500V2 2

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

4/500V2 3

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

5/500V2 4

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

6/500V2 5

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

7/500V2 6

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

8/500V2 7

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

9/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

10/500V2 9

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

11/500V2 10

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

12/500

****** IMPO RTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORM ATION *****PROOF OF SERVICE O F ELECTRONIC FILINGA filing has been subm itted to the court RE : V11-01896Judge: RENT ADAMSOfficial File Stam p: 6-30-2011:16:46:37Clerk Accepted: 6-30-2011:16:48:10Court: econd Jud icial District Court - State of NevadaCase T itle: ACH COUG HLIN VS. WASHO E LEGALSERVICES ET AL. D6)Document s) Submitted: rder...Filed By: udrey KayYou m ay review this filing by clicking on the

following link to take you to your cas es.This notice was au tomatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.

If service is not required for this document e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.The following people were served electronically:The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditionalme ans see Nevad a electronic filing rules):

WASHOE LEGAL SERVICESPROPER PERSON

V2.11

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

13/500

2

3

4

Document Code: 1030Zach Coughlin121 River Rock St.Reno, NV 89501Tele: 775-338-8118Plaintiff Zach Coughlin, IN PRO PER

F I L EElectronically07-08-2011:11:55:11 PMHoward W. ConyersClerk of the CourtTransaction 2335347

5

6

7

8

9

101112131415161718192021222324

CASE NO: CV11 01896

DEPT. NO: 6

SUPPLEMENT AL AFFIDAVIT INSUPPORT

)))))))))))))

262728

IN THE SECOND JUDICI L DISTRICT COURT OF THE ST TE OF NEV DIN ND FOR THE COUNTY OF W SHOE

ZACH COUGH LIN;Plaintiff,vs.WASH OE LEGAL SERVICES a NevadaCorporation, KATHY BRECK ENRIDGE,Individually and in her capacity as BoardPresident of WLS,TODD TORV INEN, Individually and in hiscapacity as WLS B oard Mem ber,PAUL ELCAN O, Individually and in hiscapacity as Executive Director of WLS, D OES1-100, Individually and in their capacity asmembers of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS O FWASHO E LEGAL SERVICES, CARYNSTERNLICHT, Individually and in hercapacity at WLS attorney, JON SA SSERIndividually and in his capacity at WL S agent,KAR EN SA BO Individually and in hercapacity at WLS attorney, MELISSAMA NGIAR ACINA Individually and in hercapacity at WLS attorney, MARC ASHLEYIndividually and in his capacity at WL Sattorney, ZANDR A LOPEZ Individually and inher capacity as WL S employee, DOES andROES 1-100, COMM ITTEE TO AIDABUSED WOM EN, TAHOE WOMEN SSERVICES. Defendants.

25COMES NOW P laintiff, ZACH COU GH LIN (hereinafter referred to as Cough lin or Plaintiff)and files this Supplemental Affidavit in Support of his Mo tion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

1IFP Support

V2 12

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

14/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Plaintiff will state at the outset that a considerable amount o f what follows is to be, hop efully, takenwith a grain of salt, and that the humor it hopefully contains is appreciated. It may be important tonote that Plaintiff felt obligated to file a substantially similar case and C omplaint to the one attachedto the instant In Forma Pauperis Motion in CV11-0195 5, wherein Plaintiff paid the 260 filing fee inorder to be assured to secure a stamp ed, dated filing date for the Comp laint and causes of actionrelated to the Right To Sue Letter Plaintiff received from the E EOC , being mindful of the 90 daystatute of limitations inherent in such actions. Plaintiff asks the Court that his In Forma Pauperisapplication, if granted, be applied in such a way as to result in Plaintiff being refunded the 260 filingfee Plaintiff paid in CV11-01955, and consider the Complaint Plaintiff submitted in CV11-01955 tobe Plaintiff s original Complaint in the case going forward. Plaintiff believes that the balance of theequities dictates this be done in consideration of som e of the obstacles presented by the S econdJudicial District Court's filing office and law library, being mindful of the difficult task both thoseentities face daily.

Plaintiff recalls in his time as a legal aid attorney at Washo e Legal Services that a standard of200% the federal poverty level was allegedly the cut-off for income levels of those eligible forservices from WL S, though Plaintiff cannot recall a single incident where any one was denied servicesbased upon making too much money. Individuals so accepted as clients at WLS never had to pay afiling fee given a Statement of Leg al Aid Rep resentation was autom atically filed on their behalf,thereby waiving the filing fees in their cases. Nonetheless, Plaintiff assures this Court that he hasmade well less than 200% the federal poverty guidelines in the last year, that he has less than 500 inhis bank account, that he currently has no source of income (though he is looking as assiduously asyou m ight expect an individual so situated to), and that he has no items of property for which he hasbeen able to sell and convert into monies sufficient to pay both the filing fees of the D istrict Court,

2IFP Support

V2 13

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

15/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

16/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Plaintiff expressed disapproval to the filing clerk regarding h er refusal to accept his filings, or evenmark them as received. Subsequent attempts were made to efile and In Forma Pauperis application,and N EFR rules dictate that the filing office or electronic filings operators make filing an IN Fo rmaPauperis application possible. However, Plaintiff was repeatedly told by filing office clerks,manag ers, and adm inistrators that one cannot electronically file an In Forma Pauperis application inthe Second Judicial.

It seems wh enever the courts make an improvem ent, it's for them and not the public... thesolution is to improve the system based on what the public needs, not to suit court employees.,,,

It is the bureaucratic arrogance of not even attempting to satisfy the duty to the pu blic (and the Bar),while remaining ob sessed with internal budgets and making things easier for those running thesystem, that is so maddening... Nevada attorney Marshall Willick is so quoted in a recent Las VegasNew s and Review article.

Plaintiff submits the following collection of p recedent and argum ent, which, regrettably, isnot as streamlined, nor blueboo ked as he might like it to be, but which, Plaintiff, believes, is a ratherstrong colllection of authority related to the issues arising in this IFP and bey ond. Barnes v . EighthJudicial Dist. Court of State of Nev., In and For Clark County, 748 P.2d 48 3, 103 Nev. 679 (N ev.,1987) 2 Jordan v. State of Nevada on Relation of the Department of M otor Vehicles, 121 Nev. Adv.Op. No. 7 (NV 4/14/2005), 121 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 7 (NV, 2005) 3 Jordan v. State Dep't of MotorVehicles, 110 P.3d 30, 121 Nev. 44 (Nev., 2005): Nevada has long recognized the importance ofmaintaining direct access to its state courts.4 Accordingly, Nevad a Suprem e Court Ru le 44 generallyallows for self-representation in all lower courts, and N RS 1 2.015 permits an indigent person toproceed in form a pauperis, without the payment of co urt costs and fees.5 Such rules and statutes helpto ensure that every person in Nevad a is afforded m eaningful access to the courts, regardless of that

4IFP Support

V2 15

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

17/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

18/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

19/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

touchy subjects and m erely, respectfully, ask this court to embo dy that wo nderful symbol of justice,wherein a blindfold covers the eyes o f she who is in the position to judge. In the instant case, defensecounsel is working feverishly, if not quite in the spirit of the legal aid entity which is represents, toget Plaintiff's case thrown ou t and d eny Plaintiff a day in court, seeking to assert that the statute oflimitations has run on Plaintiff's claim considering the 90 days from receipt of the EEOC's Right ToSue Letter. Indeed, there is some authority that the filing date, or at least running of the statute oflimitations, is tolled upon the filing of a In Forma P auperis petition by a Title VII claimant. (and h ere,the authority seems to suggest even the attempted filing , even where a saturnine filing office clerksumm oned an arm ed Sheriff's Deputy to shut Plaintiff up instead of doing her job and acceptingPlaintiff's subm ission for, if not filing, as least a marking of the attemp ted filing as received , shouldtoll the 90 day limitations period for filing from receipt of the EEOC 's Right to Sue Letter). So, goshdarnit, we have a Plaintiff who goes to C ourt and argues zealously on behalf of a purported domesticviolence victim (one who m akes more m oney than Plaintiff and had nary a second glance cast at herfee waiver or Statement of Legal Aid and Representation , even where viewed in conjunction withher Financial Declaration), and Plaintiff gets sanctioned (and of course, ultimately summ arily fired ina humiliating witch trial type of way) around $1 ,000 by a Fam ily Court Judge for, other than being

sarcastic and his tone having issues , arguing what actually, turns out, is the majority viewpointon an issue within the collective Am erican jurisprudence on the issue (and Plaintiff mentioned anALR was on point in this regard to the Family C ourt Judge during the d ivorce trial, no less). So, afterbeing fired, Plaintiff seeks redress with the E EOC , where allegedly, the Investigator on his case has avideo under his own name on youtube.com wherein the investigator can be seen masturbating,ejaculating on a wall, urinating, and bleeding. Plaintiff expresses reluctance to w ork further with theinvestigator, whereupon several upper level EEOC adminstrators inform Plaintiff that they just do not

7IFP Support

V2 18

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

20/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

see what the big deal is and that they really have not looked into the issues Plaintiff is complainingthat much and, really, do not intend to anyways. So, then Plaintiff updates the EEOC with his

contact information and mailing address in a direct written response to a direct written questionasking for such information, how ever, the EEOC mails the Right To Su e Letter to Plaintiff's old,outdate address. Then the EEOC makes several curious and strange statements about why it remaileda letter to Plaintiff's newer address a week later, after becom ing aware that Plaintiff had a neweraddress, despite the fact that the EEOC is apparently asserting that it never received the o riginalmailing as returned to sender and marked with Plaintiff's new address, even though, as the 12

mon th expiration of Plaintiff's original Change of Ad dress on file with the U nited States PostalService had just passed when the original March 22, 2011 RT S letter was m ailed, in accordance withUSPS policy, all mailings addressed to a person, like Plaintiff's, older address are to be returned tosender with a sticker placed thereon wherein the sender is notified in writing of the receipients neweraddress. To clarify, one may file a Change of Address with the USPS, as Plaintiff did here, in the lastweek of February 20 10. The USP S will then forward all mail to such a person for a period of 12months at that person s newer address. At the expiration of 12 months, mail addressed to a receipientbearing and outdated address will no longer be forwarded to the new address, but rather returned tosender with a sticker placed on the mailing indicating the recipient has moved and spelling out therecipient s new address. Somehow, the Director of the EEOC is now apparently claiming that hedidn't getsuch an envelope returned to him, but that he did becom ing aware (but not apparently through any

returned mail and corresponding docum entation placed therein alerting the sender of Plaintiff's newaddress, for a second time) that Plaintiff's address had changed, about 5 days after the originalmailing of Plaintiff's Right To Su e Letter, whereupon the SF EEO C D irector then, mailed Plaintiff

8IFP Support

V2 19

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

21/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

22/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

unprompted, an d again, unilaterally, proceed to retrieve and armed Sh eriff's Deputy to tell Plaintiff toshut up and quit bothering the Clerk. Finally the Supervisor, Ms. Wise, informed Plaintiff, a memberof the Bar, that she trusted her clerk's conclusion and did not feel it necessary to crack even onepaper out of Plaintiff's stack herself or look into the situation any further. Then, both Ms. Wise andthis yet to be nam ed, and apparently, yet to be informed of decisional authority such as the Sullivanor W hitman cases, both informed Plaintiff that they wouldn't give Plaintiff any sort of docum entationmem orializing his attempts at filing and that they wouldn't keep anything he h ad to give them o rmark anything as received . Next, Plaintiff finally manages to get somebody to accept his IFP

Mo tion, whereupon the Chief Judge, in a departure from the rubber stamping Plaintiff was told wasso com mon, insists that Plaintiff file a Supplem ental Affidavit further detailing his lack of financesand und erscoring, in writing, and on the record, what a great success Plaintiff had becom e in lifefinancially, as having a licensed attorney sign a d ocument w ith full knowledge of R ule 11 attesting tohis deservedness of an In Forma Pauperis designation was not quite good en ough proof of such, eventhough P laintiff filled out the exact form the filing office provides to the public and insist they fill outin order to submit an In Forma Pauperis Motion, and this, after a clerk had refused to accept the m oredetailed IFP Plaintiff presented with du ring his initial attempt at filing, beating even the mo stdraconian and on erous interpretation of the 90 d ay statute of limitations period, and avoidingunecessarily litigating issues related to C hanges of Address, the EE OC's failure to update its contactinformation after Plaintiff had provided it in writing etc. So, not to humiliate Plaintiff or anything,but just to, you know, m ake sure that this IFP is justly granted, Plaintiff hereby attests, under penaltyof perjury that his rent has recently jumped from $450 to $900 due to his roommate of four yearsgraduating from college in May and deciding she needed a change (this after Plaintiff made untoldsacrifices to see that she completed the three years worth of college credits she needed to graduate,

10IFP Support

V2 21

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

23/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

24/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

25/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

legislative intent to `deter frivolous or vexatious claims and defenses[, which] overburden limitedjudicial resources, hinder the timely resolution of m eritorious claims and increase the costs ofengaging in business and providing professional services to the public,' throughthe courts' impo sition of sanctions under Ru le 11 (quoting S.B. 250, 72d Leg. (Nev. 2003 ); 2003

Nev. Stat., ch. 508, 153, at 3478)); see also Blanks v. State, 594 So. 2d 25, 28 (M iss. 1992),abrogated in part by Bilbo v. Thigpen, 647 So. 2d 678 (M iss. 1994). 9. See NRC P 11(c)(1)(A), (B).10. Blanks, 594 So. 2d at 27; see also Brown v. Diaz, 361 S.E.2d 490 (G a. Ct. App. 1987)(dismissing an in form a pauperis inm ate's complaint for frivolity after holding a preliminary h earing);

Evans v. Green, 391 S.E.2d 11 (G a. Ct. App. 1990) (same, at least when prisoner complaints allegingviolations of federal law are involved). 11. 766 F .2d 179 (5th C ir. 1985), abrogated in part by Neitzkev. Williams, 490 U .S. 319, 323 (1989), m odified in part by statute as recognized in Ch ristiansen v.Clarke, 147 F.3d 655 (8th Cir. 1998). 12. Id. at 180. 13. Id.; 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). 14. Com pareNR S 12.015, with 28 U.S.C. 1915 (e)(2), Del. Code A nn. tit. 10, 8803(b) (1999), Ga. Code A nn. 9-15-2(d) (1993), Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2301 (1995), and 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 240(j) (West2002). 15. See Sullivan v. District Court, 111 Nev. 1367, 1371, 904 P.2d 103 9, 1042 (1995) ( If, onsubsequent review o f the application, the district court determines that petitioner has no t shown he isindigent, the district court may order petitioner to provide further information or may d eny theapplication in an appropriately filed written order. ). 4 Sullivan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court Inand For County of Clark, 904 P.2d 1039, 111 Nev. 1367 (Nev., 1995) 5 Casper v. Huber, 85 Nev.474, 456 P.2d 436 (Nev., 1969) 6 In re Amendments to Eighth Judicial District Court Rules, ADKT372 (Nev . 6/8/2006) (Nev., 2006) 7 R odriguez v. Eighth Judicial District Court of State of Nev ada,120 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 87 (NV 12/9/2004), 120 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 87 (NV, 2004) 8 Rodriguez v.Dist. Ct., 102 P.3d 41, 120 Nev. 798 (Nev., 2004): Determining whether a particular party meets the

13IFP Support

V2 24

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

26/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

standard for indigency is a fact-intensive inquiry.State v. V incent, 883 P.2d 278 , 283 (U tah 1994).The initial burden of establishing indigency rests with the petitioner, (Nikander v. Dist. Ct. in & forFirst. Jud. Dist., 711 P.2d 1260, 1262 (Colo.1986)) who must dem onstrate not that he is entirelydestitute and w ithout funds, but that payments for counsel wou ld place an undue h ardship on hisability to provide the basic necessities of life for himself and his family. (Vincent, 883 P .2d at 283;see also Nikander, 711 P.2d at 1262 ( In order to be deemed indigent, the defendant need not bedestitute; rather, it is sufficient that the defend ant lack the n ecessary funds, on a practical basis, toretain competent counsel. )....In the context of civil litigation, the general rule is that courts look to a

party's current financial status, including the [102 P.3d 47] party's income, p roperty, and otherresources, to determine that p arty's present ability or, m ore impo rtantly, inability to prosecute ordefend an action.15 W hen considering an indigency application, a trial judge m ust consider a party'scomp lete financial picture, balancing incom e and assets against debts and liabilities, taking intoaccount the cost of a party's basic needs and living expenses.16 Particularly relevant to this inquiryare (1) the party's employm ent status and income, including incom e from governm ent sources such associal security and unem ployment benefits,17 (2) the ownership of any unencum bered assets,including real or personal property and mon ies on deposit,18 and finally, (3) the party's totalindebtedness and any financial assistance received from family or close friends.19 Ad ditionally,when con fronted with a party who is willfully underemployed, especially for purposes of avoidingcourt ordered support pay ments, additional inquiry is required. In such a case, it is prudent for thecourt to consider the employability of the nonpaying party and what his or her ability to pay wou ld beif employm ent were pursued and obtained.20 W e note that while the determination of a party'sindigency status is generally w ithin the trial court's sound discretion and , therefore, entitled to greatdeference on review , it is also subject to careful scrutiny when it involves the protection of basic

1 4IFP Support

V2 25

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

27/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

28/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

29/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

30/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

CU MU LAT IVE SU PPLEM ENT C ases: Plaintiff sufficiently attested to his financial assets anddemo nstrated that, due to his poverty, he was financially eligible to proceed in form a pauperis, wherehe stated in his application that because of his incarceration, he was u nable to work an d had notreceived any income in the past 12 mo nths, and provided copies of his Florida Department ofCorrections Trust Fund Account statements for June through No vember 20 06. Heuss v. U.S., 75 Fed.Cl. 636 (2007). [END O F SUPPL EM ENT ] [FN1] Third Circuit U.S. v. Slater, 96 F.R.D. 53 (D. Del.1982) Seventh C ircuit Zaun v. Do bbin, 628 F.2d 990 (7th Cir. 1980) Eleventh Circuit Levy v.Federated Dept. Stores, 607 F. Supp. 32 (S.D. Fla. 1984) [FN2 ] Eleventh Circuit Moon v. New some,

863 F.2d 835, 13 Fed. R . Serv. 3d 359 (11th Cir. 1989) [FN3] Ninth Circuit W iideman v. Harper, 754F. Supp. 808 (D. Nev . 1990) [FN4] Third Circuit U.S. v. Slater, 96 F.R.D. 53 (D. Del. 1982) [FN5 ]First Circuit Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848 (D.R .I. 1984) [FN6] First Circuit Temple v.Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848 (D.R.I. 1984) [FN7] Second Circuit U. S. v. Jeff-Lewis Sav. LoanAss'n, 530 F. Supp. 623 (N.D. N.Y . 1982) [FN8] Third C ircuit Thom as v. Califano, 79 F.R.D. 14(M.D. Pa. 1978) [FN 9] Ninth Circuit Thiel v. Southern Pac. Co., 159 F.2d 61 (C.C.A . 9th Cir. 1946)[FN10] Secon d Circuit In re Melendez, 153 B.R. 386 (Bank r. D. Conn. 1993) (rejected on othergrounds by, In re Buck, 157 B .R. 247 (Bankr. W .D. Pa. 1993)) [FN11] Third Circuit In re Koren, 176B.R. 740 (Bank r. E.D. Pa. 1995) [FN12] Third Circuit Failor v. Califano, 79 F.R.D. 12 (M.D. Pa.1978) [FN13 ] Third Circuit Souder v. McG uire, 516 F.2d 820 (3d Cir. 1975) Ward v. W erner, 61F.R.D. 639 (M .D. Pa. 1974) In re Lassina, 261 B .R. 614 (Bankr. E.D . Pa. 2001) Fifth Circuit Carrollv. U.S., 320 F. Supp. 581 (S.D. Tex. 1970) [FN14] T hird Circuit In re Lassina, 261 B.R. 614 (Bankr.E.D. Pa. 2001) [FN15] E ighth Circuit Department of Banking and F inance, State of Neb. v. Copple,84 B.R. 163 (B ankr. D. Neb. 1988) [FN 16] Fifth Circuit Holmes v. Hardy, 852 F.2d 151 (5th C ir.1988) FEDPROC 20:373 8 Fed. Proc., L. Ed. 20:374

18IFP Support

V2 29

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

31/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

32/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

minor son.[FN9] CUM ULATIV E SU PPLEMEN T C ases: Plaintiff met poverty requirement of informa paup eris statute, where she hovered close to one measure of po verty, she owed a large debtdespite her financial limitations, her net worth was negative, her mon thly budget exceeded hermon thly income, and another federal program deemed her eligible for assistance reserved for thepoor. Fiebelkorn v. U.S., 77 Fed. Cl. 59 (2007). [END O F SUPPL EM ENT ] [FN1] Third Circuit U.S.v. Scharf, 354 F. Supp. 450 (E.D. Pa. 1973), aff d, 480 F.2d 91 9 (3d Cir. 1973) [FN 2] Fourth CircuitW illiams v. Spencer, 455 F. Supp. 205 (D. Md. 1978) [FN3] Second C ircuit Mo nti v. McK eon, 600F. Supp. 112 (D . Conn. 1984), aff d, 788 F.2d 1 (2d C ir. 1985) [FN4] Fifth Circuit Watson v. A ult,

525 F.2d 886, 21 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 109 (5th C ir. 1976) Evensky v. Wright, 45 F.R.D. 506 (N .D. Miss.1968) [FN5 ] Eighth Circuit Roberts v. I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co., 316 F. Supp. 133 (D. M inn. 1970)[FN6] Seventh Circuit Nur v. Blake Developm ent Corp., 664 F. Supp. 430 (N.D. Ind. 1987) [FN7]Seventh Circuit Nur v. Blake Development Corp., 664 F. Supp. 430 (N.D. Ind. 1987) [FN8] EleventhCircuit Cofield v. Alabama Public Service Com n, 936 F.2d 512 (11th Cir. 1991) [FN9 ] EighthCircuit Ayres v. Eggers, 145 F.R.D. 99 (D. Neb. 1992) 8Fed. Proc., L. Ed. 20:364 Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition Database updated June 2011 Chap ter20. Courts and Judicial System IX. Proceedings in Forma Pauperis A. In General Sum maryCorrelation Table References 20:364. Co urt s discretion to grant o r deny ap plication Leave toproceed in form a pauperis is discretionary with the court;[FN1] how ever, that discretion cannot beexercised so as to deny a person access to the federal courts solely on account of financial standing.[FN2] A dditionally, a court, in exercising its discretion, mu st not act arbitrarily; nor m ay it deny anapplication on erroneous grounds.[FN3] Leave to proceed in forma paup eris cannot be deniedbecause litigants are receiving free legal representation by legal aid society lawyers.[FN4] Th e natureof the cause of action is a legitimate factor in a court s consideration of how to emp loy its discretion

20IFP Support

V2 31

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

33/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

34/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

35/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

36/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

37/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

38/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Texas. - [FNa115] Un iversity Professor, New Y ork University. Formerly Bruce Brom ley Professor ofLaw, H arvard University. - [FNa116 ] John F. Digardi Distinguished Professor of Law, Chancellorand Dean E meritus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. - [FNa117] Horace O .Coil (57) Chair in Litigation, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. - [FN 1] Costslimited Appealing inm ate s in forma paup eris status did not give him the right to have a file stampedcopy of the notice of appeal made and returned to him at governm ent expense. In re Richard,C.A.6th, 1990, 914 F .2d 1526. In form a pauperis status of civil-rights plaintiff did not exempt him

from requiremen t that witness fees be tendered with subpoena. Tedder v. Odel, C.A.9th, 1989, 890

F.2d 210. Evans v . Tennessee Dep t of Corrections, C.A.6th, 1975, 514 F.2d 283 (fees of clerk andmarshal not allowed). Harless v. U. S., C.A.5th, 1964, 329 F.2d 397 (court orders, indictments, andtranscript of record disallowed). Douglas v. G reen, C.A.6th, 1964, 327 F.2d 66 1, certiorari denied 85S.Ct. 126, 379 U.S. 862, 13 L.Ed.2d 66 (court orders disallowed). Although indigent civil litigantsmay be relieved of the obligation to pay filing fees, transportation expen ses are not provided, asdirecting that public funds be used to p ay those expenses w ould go beyo nd the scope of affirmativeassistance to civil litigants required by statute. Manning v. Tefft, D.C.R.I.1994, 839 F.Supp . 126.McC lure v. Salvation Arm y, D.C.Ga.1971, 51 F.R.D. 215 (cop y of transcript disallowed). Ebenhartv. Power, D.C .N.Y.1969, 309 F .Supp. 660 (deposition costs disallowed). [FN 2] English statute 11Henry V II, c. 12 (1495). This statute did not apply to defendants. Nor d id a subsequent statute on thesame subject. 23 Henry V III, c. 15 (1531 15 32). [FN3] Act of 1892 2 7 Stat. 252 (1892). [FN4] Actof 1910 36 Stat. 866 (1910). [FN5] A ct of 1922 42 Stat. 666 (1922) (record on appeal in a criminalcase). [FN6] Act of 194 4 58 Stat. 5 (1944) (trial transcript). [FN7] Act of 1959 73 Stat. 590 (1959).Prior to that amend ment the statute was construed as not applying to aliens. Higgins v. Steele,C.A.8th, 1952, 195 F.2d 366, 368. Boyden v. Smith, C.A.9th, 1950, 183 F.2d 189. [FN8] Bank ruptcy

26IFP Support

V2 37

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

39/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

40/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

41/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

allege facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief under Civil Rights A ct). Conway v. Oliver,C.A.9th, 1970, 429 F.2d 1307 (m alicious or frivolous). Dawson v. Lynch, C.A .9th, 1970, 423 F.2d1136 (frivolous). Allison v. California Adult A uthority, C.A.9th, 1969, 419 F .2d 822 (failure to stateclaim). Startti v. U. S., C.A.5th, 1969, 415 F.2d 11 15. Diam ond v. Pitchess, C.A.9th, 1969, 411 F.2d565 (frivolous or malicious). Williams v. Field, C.A.9th, 1968, 394 F.2d 329 , certiorari denied 89S.Ct. 213, 393 U.S. 891, 21 L.Ed.2d 171. Shobe v. People of C alifornia, C.A.9th, 1966, 362 F.2d545, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 185, 385 U.S. 887, 17 L.Ed .2d 115. Cole v. Sm ith, C.A.8th, 1965, 344F.2d 721. H arless v. U. S., C.A.5th, 1964, 329 F.2d 397. Higgins v. Steele, C.A.8th, 1952, 195 F.2d

366. Sandles v. Schneider, D.C.W is.1995, 914 F.Supp. 287 (frivolous). Appellant could not proceedin forma pauperis, since his attempt to use a m otion to vacate a crim inal sentence to challenge civilforfeiture was so lacking in good faith that it amounted to deliberate harassment of the court orintentional abuse of judicial process. U.S. v. Britt, D.C.Va.1995, 907 F.Supp. 949. Perkins v. NewJersey Dep't of Labor, Div. of Workers Com pensation, D.C.Pa.1994, 154 F.R.D. 132. Although civilrights plaintiffs were hard-pressed to pay costs, they clearly w ere not indigent and not excused fromthe taxation of costs altogether. McCabe v. City of C hicago, D.C.Ill.1984, 593 F.Supp. 665 . Plaintiffwould n ot be granted leave to proceed in form a pauperis in a civil-rights action against Satan and hisservants, who allegedly placed deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and caused his dow nfall, in viewof questions of personal jurisdiction over defendant, the propriety of using a class action, andplaintiff's failure to include instructions about where the marshal w as to serve process. U. S. ex rel.May o v. Satan his Staff, D.C.Pa.1971, 54 F.R.D. 282. In re W ilson, D.C.Tenn.1970, 314 F.Supp.271 (no substantial controversy). Jones v. Board of Probation Parole, Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1968,281 F.Supp. 62 (jurisdiction). Shields v. U. S., D.C.Ky.1962 , 201 F.Supp. 790, affirmed on othergrounds C.A .6th, 1962, 310 F.2d 708, certiorari denied 83 S.Ct. 1888, 374 U.S. 837, 10 L.Ed.2d

29IFP Support

V2 40

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

42/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

43/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

44/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

som e authority indicating th at the appellate court cann ot ignore the district court s certificate. See, e.g., Middlebrooks v. U. S., C.A.9th, 1950, 184 F.2d 331. How ever, it seems m ore reasonable toconclude that the reviewing court has that pow er in at least a very limited range of cases. See, e. g.,Holt v. U. S., C.A.6th, 1960, 279 F.2d 735, certiorari denied 81 S.Ct. 355, 364 U .S. 928, 5 L.Ed.2d266 FPP 2673 20 C J S Costs 99 Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated June 2011 Costsby Jack K. Levin, J.D. and Elizabeth Williams, J.D. VI. Actions or Defenses in Forma Pau peris B.Procedure Topic Sum mary References Correlation Table 99. Determination and order West s KeyNumber Digest West's Key Number Digest, Costs FPRIVATE TYPE=PICT;ALT=Key Number

133 A co urt ruling on an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must m akedeterminations whether the plaintiff qualifies and the case is frivolous, and its decision is a matter ofdiscretion. A plaintiff should be allowed to p roceed in forma p auperis if he or she is truly unable topay costs and expenses, and the claims are not frivolous or malicious.[FN1] A determinationconcerning indigency m ust first be made, before dismissing a case as being frivolous.[FN2] It isusually required that a trial court then make a determination whether the case is frivolous.[FN3]W hile there is some authority that a trial court should dismiss an action that does not meet the criteriafor proceeding in forma pauperis, without permitting the service of process,[FN4] it has elsewherebeen held that the court may not summ arily refuse a forma paup eris filing merely because thecomp laint appears lacking in merit, but may only dismiss the case on the sam e basis as an action forwhich fees have been paid.[FN5] In accordan ce with certain statutes, dismissal of an action upondenial of the application to proceed in form a pauperis is im proper, but the plaintiff has a specifiedtime to proceed upon paym ent of fees and costs.[FN6] This effectively extends the time to pay thefees,[FN7] but if the plaintiff does not do so, the filing has no effect.[FN8] O ther statutes do notrequire that a court afford a plaintiff the opportunity to pay the requisite filing fee before dism issing

32IFP Support

V2 43

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

45/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

46/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FILING DEADLINE BEING MISSED, THEREBYINAPPRO PRIATELY PREV ENTING Plaintiff FROM SEE KING RED RESS IN COURT.ff hascomp lained to Court Adm inistration in writing and has yet to receive any response at all. Further,even in discussions with Filing Office Managers the identity of the refusing clerk has yet to beascertained, nor has it been m ade clear to Plaintiff that this clerk has been m ade aw are of cases likeWhitman or Sullivan.

Further, filing clerk M ia's refusal to file Plaintiff's IFP is seemingly at odds w ith NEFR 5:Nevada Electronic Filing Rule (NEFR) Rule 5. Electronic filing system requirements. Any systemfor the electronic submission of documen ts adopted by a district, justice or municipal court mustconform to the following minimum requirements:... (h) Electronic acceptance of payments. A courtmay establish a m eans to accept paym ents of fees, fines, surcharges, and other financial obligationselectronically, including the processing of applications to waive fees. A ny such system developedmust include auditing controls consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and com plywith any AO C technical standards that may b e adopted.Also, NEFR 10(b) holds that:

Rule 10. Payment of filing fees.b) Waiver of fees. Anyone entitled to waiver of nonelectronicfiling fees w ill not be charged electronic filing fees. The court or clerk shall establish an applicationand w aiver process consistent with the application and waiver process used w ith respect tononelectronic filing and filing fees.Rule 11 Signatures

(a) Deemed signed. Every document electronically filed or served shall be deemed to be signedby the registered user submitting the documen t. Each document m ust bear that persons name,mailing address, telephone numb er, and bar num ber if applicable. Where a statute or court rulerequires a signature at a particular location on a form, the persons typewritten name shall be inserted.Otherwise, a facsim ile, typographical, or digital signature is not required.

232425 (b) Docum ents under penalty of perjury or requiring signature of notary public.262728

3 4IFP Support

V2 45

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

47/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011121314151617181920212223242526

(1) Docum ents required by law to include a signature under penalty of perjury, or thesignature of a notary pub lic, may be submitted electronically, provided that the declarant or no tarypublic has signed a printed form of the document. The printed docum ent bearing the originalsignatures must be scanned and electronically submitted for filing in a format that accuratelyreproduces the original signatures and contents of the document.

(2) By electronically filing the docum ent, the electronic filer verifies that the signatures areauthentic.

NEFR Rule 14 Access to electronic documents; confidential information A court may provideelectronic access to registered users who are not parties or attorneys on a case. Plaintiff asks thatthis Court grant Plaintiff such access to electronic records on cases he is not a party to in accord w ithNEF R 14 and to avoid the excessive charges levied by the WC LL and Filing Office.

Moreov er, contrary to NRCP 5 prov ides thatSERVICE AN D FILING OF PLEAD INGS AND OTHE R PAPERS(e) Filing With the CourtDefined. The filing of pleadings and other papers w ith the court as required by these rules shall bemade by filing them w ith the clerk of the court, except that the judge may permit the papers to befiled with the judge, in w hich event the judge shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith transm itthem to the office of the clerk. A court m ay by local rule permit papers to be filed, signed or verifiedby electronic mean s that are consistent with technical standards, if any, that the Judicial Conferenceof the United States establishes. A paper signed by electronic means in com pliance with the local ruleconstitutes a written paper p resented for the purpose of applying these rules. The clerk shall notrefuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented inproper form as required by these rules or an y local rules or practices.[As am ended; effective January 1, 2005.]

2728

35IFP Support

V2 46

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

48/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

49/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

50/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

51/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

up and that this is not a two w ay conversation, you are to listen to Plaintiff and not talk, got it andthat Plaintiff was asking bad questions and that Plaintiff was just being a troublemaker and that theSheriff's Deputies didn't like it at all, all why hav ing tazers, firearms, walkie-talkies, 100 ,000 ayear salaries, accusing Plaintiff of lying, making b road-based inappropriate accusations given thecontext of the discussion, and generally behaving in a police-state authoritarian man ner whichdisgraces the many m en and wom en who hav e died making this country a free one.

Further, that same d ay while attempting to d o som e cost effective legal research, andhopefully, ascend from his current In Forma Pauperis applicant status, Plaintiff was harrassed bymem bers of the WCLL staff, foremost amongst them being law librarian M yndi Clive, who despiteworking during a time w hen our country faced econom ic disasters not seen since the GreatDepression, still received her 5,000 raise in 2009, chose to accost Plaintiff whilst he wasperforming legal research on W estlaw and rudely inform Plaintiff in a hostile and accustatory toneMs. C live's interpretation of the subscription contract Washoe C ounty entered into with W estlaw.

Plaintiff was provided a copy of this W estlaw subscription and pointed out the W CLL staffand C ourt Adm instration the following provisions: 2 . L icense .a ) Grant . Subscr iber is granted a n on-exclus ive , non- t ransferable , l imi ted l icense to

a c c e s s W e s t la w a n d t h e C D - R O M L i b r ar y i e s ) t o w h i c h S u b s c r i b e r s u b s c r ib e s . S u c hl icense inc ludes the right to access da ta made ava i lab le through W est law We st law Data )and da ta conta ined in the CD-ROM L ibra ry ies) CD-RO M Data , col lect ive ly Data whichinc ludes Downloaded Data as def ined below) . Subscr iber may use the Da ta in terna l ly

sole ly in the regula r course of lega l and other research and re la ted wo rk . Except asotherwise prov ided, the l icense inc ludes the r ight to download and tem porar i ly s toreinsubstant ia l por t ions of Da ta Dow nloaded Data ) to a s torage dev ice under Subsc r iber sexclus ive cont ro l so le ly i ) to d isplay in terna l ly such Down loaded Data and i i ) to quote andexcerpt such Dow nloaded Data appropr ia te ly c i ted and credi ted) by e lect ron ic cut t ing and

39IFP Support

V2 50

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

52/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

53/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

54/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

obtained copies of these contracts and pointed out to W CLL personnel the apparent fact that thecontracts stated the exact opposite of the positions asserted by WC LL personnel. W CLL personnelpersisted in angrily accusing and confronting Plaintiff and just generally treating Plaintiff and othermem bers of the public as though they were uninvited guests who had hap pened to walk into M s.Clive s private bedroom in her own home after the close of business hours, rather than into a pu bliclaw library funded, in one way or ano ther, by taxes and fees levied upon mem bers of the public inWashoe County. Ms. Clive however disputed the assertion that the public had anything to do withthe funds used to purchase a W estlaw subscription, pay h er salary, operate the library, though she did

not offer any insight into wh ere such monies m ay have m aterialized from o therwise.A thorough review of the docum ent which apparently memo rializes the agreement between

Washoe County and Westlaw yields some troubling inconsistencies with respect to the assertionsmade by the WCLL when viewed along with the Westlaw subscriber agreement. Plaintiff isparticularly troubled by this given the fact that he has been forced to pay the WC LL m oney for suchmaterials and spend many work hou rs converting into a useful form such m aterials in an amounts inexcess of 10,000. Recently retired law librarian Sandra Marz collected over 160,000 in salary andbenefits from Washoe County in her last year on the job. One might expect that with such highpriced talent the WCL L wou ld not purchase competing subscriptions from both Lexis and W estlawthat offer access to the s me d t b ses. For instance, WCLL apparently subscribes to a databasescontainign all Nevada cases from BOTH Westlaw and Lexis. While these entities may have riggedthings, similar to the cable company, w hereby one is forced to pay for a base subscription to a bunchof channels they w ill never watch before one can select individually som e special collection ofstations, it wou ld be b eneficial, if at all possible, for the WC LL to refrain from these duplicatedatabase subcriptions and instead include d atabases such as nv -forms, nv-pleadings, or nv-filings

4 2IFP Support

V2 53

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

55/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

56/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

leave to proceed without payment of fees]. Further, we have repeatedly instructed the clerk of theEighth Judicial District Court that such docum ents must be filed. See Bow man v. District Court, 102Nev. 474, 72 8 P.2d 433 (19 86) (clerk has a ministerial duty to accept and file documents if thosedocum ents are in proper form; clerk m ust not exercise any judicial discretion); Barnes v.District Court, 103 Nev. 679, 748 P.2d 483 (198 7) (prisoner's right of access to court cannot bedenied on basis of indigency); Huebner v. State, 107 Nev . 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991) (clerk m ustcreate an accurate record of all pleadings submitted for filing, whether or not the docum ents areactually filed); Whitman v. W hitman, 108 Nev . 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992) (clerk has no authority toreturn documen ts submitted for filing; instead, clerk mu st stamp docum ents that cannot beimm ediately filed received, and must maintain such docum ents in the record of the case); Dono hov. District Court, 108 Nev. 1027, 842 P.2d 731 (199 2) (the clerk of the district court has a duty to filedocuments and to keep an accurate record of the proceedings before the court); Grey v. Grey, 111Nev. 388, 89 2 P.2d 595 (19 95) (clerk of district court admon ished for failure to keep accurate recordof docum ents submitted for filing).Petitioner alleges that the district court has refused to file his application and has returned it withdirections to provide more information regarding em ployment. Indeed, petitioner has attached to hispetition for a writ in this court his original application as it w as returned to him . Attached to the topof the docum ent is a post-it note with the handwritten notation: application denied incompleteinfo-employm ent currently. 4 The state informs us that the note was written by the chief judge.In addition, petitioner alleges, and the allegation is apparently true, that along with his deniedapplication for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, his civil complaint was returned to him un filed.Finally, petitioner alleges, and has attached docum entation to support the allegation, that judges' lawclerks often return to prisoners unfiled motions along with letters purporting to rule on the legalsufficiency of those motions. 5The state argues in its answer to this petition that petitioner's application ... was denied on thebasis that the address of the Petitioner which w as later given to the Co urt by Petitioner ... did notappear to be a jail and that such information w as contrary to the information shown in the applicationwhich stated that the Petitioner was in prison. Th e 'out of jail' address suggested an ab ility of thePetitioner to be employed.This vague reference to an out of jail address is not explained in the docum ents before thiscourt. Nevertheless, the state's assertion that p etitioner's application was denied is incorrect. Thehandw ritten notation on petitioner's unfiled application clearly does not constitute a proper judicialdisposition of that application.Further, the action of the clerk of the district court in returning p etitioner's application and civilcomp laint to him unfiled is in direct violation of this court's instructions to the clerk of the districtcourt in Whitman v. Whitman , 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 123 2 (1992). This court has several timesconfirmed the absolute obligation of the district courts to file documents submitted to them and topreserve the right of citizens to access to the courts, whether indigent or no t. Barnes v. District Court,103 Nev . 679, 748 P.2d 483 (1987); Hu ebner v. State, 107 Nev . 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991). Indeed,in Dono ho v. District Court, 108 Nev. 1027 , 842 P.2d 731 (1992), a case directly analogous to thiscase, we held that the clerk o f the district court violated the rights of an indigent party when sheneglected to file a motion for leave to proceed in form a pauperis and a m otionfor relief from a default judgment. Specifically, we stated: [T]he clerk [of the district court] had anabsolute duty to file the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to clearly stamp the dateof receipt of the other documents on the docum ents. Further, the clerk had a duty to k eep an accurate

4 4IFP Support

V2 55

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

57/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627

record of the case pending before the district court. Id. at 1029, 842 P.2d at 733 (citation omitted;emphasis added).Thus, petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pau peris must be filed. If, onsubsequent review o f the application, the district court determines that petitioner has no t shown he isindigent, the district court may order petitioner to provide further information or may d eny theapplication in an app ropriately filed w ritten order. If, on the other han d, the district court grants theapplication, the district court m ust then proceed to require the filing of petitioner's other docum entsand to consider them in due course. Donoh o, 108 Nev. at 1030, 842 P.2d at 733. Of course, for statuteof limitations purposes, the com plaint would have to be considered filed on the date of actual receiptby the clerk of the d istrict court.To continue the analysis, with respect to petitioner's civil comp laint which he is attempting tofile concurrently, the district court clerk had an absolute obligation to stamp the docum ent receivedand to record the date on which the docum ent was in fact received at the courthouse. See Huebner v.State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (19 91). This the clerk of the district court did. Howev er, the clerkthen had a duty to m aintain a copy of the received docum ent in the record of the case, whether or notthe documen t is ever filed. Whitman v. W hitman, 108 N ev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992 ). This, theclerk neglected to do.W hile Huebner dealt with the timeliness of a notice of appeal, the rationale compelling thiscourt's ruling in Huebn er, that all docum ents must be m arked received and dated, applies with equalforce to a party's submission of a complaint. The legal rights of the parties to litigation, whetheracting in proper person or through cou nsel, often turn on the date of receipt by the clerk of the d istrictcourt of documents and pleadings. Huebn er, 107 Nev. at 330, 810 P.2d at 1211. As with a notice ofappeal, the untimely filing of a complaint may prevent the court from hearing the m atter on its merits.It is the responsibility of the clerk of the district court to keep an accurate record of all docum entssubmitted to her, whether or not they are filed. As in H uebner, ambiguities regarding whendocum ents were received or filed must ultimately be resolved in favor of the party subm itting them .Id. at 332, 810 P.2d at 1212.

The issue presently before this court is not w hether petitioner's motion for leave to proceed informa p auperis is sufficient to establish petitioner's indigence. Further, we are not now concernedwith the m erits of petitioner's civil comp laint. We are vitally concerned, how ever, with thepreservation of the constitutional right of access to the cou rts and with the p rotection of theconstitutional right to due p rocess of law.A w rit of mandamu s is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires asa duty resulting from an office, trust or station. NRS 34.160. The clerk of the district court has anabsolute duty to file petitioner's application and to properly receive and keep a record o f petitioner'scomp laint. Accordingly, we g rant this petition for a writ of mand amus. 6 T he clerk of this court shallserve a copy of petitioner's application and com plaint on the clerk of thedistrict court forthwith. The clerk of this court shall also issue a w rit of mandam us com pelling theclerk of the district court to file petitioner's application, and to receive petitioner's complaint. Thesedocum ents will be considered to have been filed and received on M ay 15, 1995.1 Petitioner also seeks a writ of p rohibition enjoining the district court, the clerk of the d istrict courtand her em ployees from den ying prisoners access to the courts in the future. We deny petitioner'srequest for a writ of prohibition.

28

4 5IFP Support

V2 56

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

58/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

59/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

to proceed on app eal in forma pauperis on the d ate of receipt, Decem ber 30, 1991, and that thedistrict court eventually granted that motion.W e have previously stated that it is extremely important that the clerk of the district court keepan accurate record of the date of receipt of every docum ent submitted to the clerk, regardless ofwhether the docum ent is in the appropriate form. Indeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty for the clerkof the district court to neglect this ministerial duty. Huebn er v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 330, 810 P.2d1209, 1211 (1991) (footnote om itted). In this case, the clerk of the district court has failed to keep anyrecord of the date o f receipt of appellant's notice of appeal; instead, the clerk stamped the docum entreceived and returned it to appellant. The clerk of the district court had no authority to take suchaction.Although the clerk of the district court had no d uty to file appellant's notice of appeal beforeappellant paid the requisite filing fee or w as relieved of the duty to pay the filing fee by order of thedistrict court, see NRS 19.013(2), the clerk had a d uty to receive the documen t and to keep anaccurate record of the case pending before the district court. Particularly in this case it w as essentialthat the notice of appeal be retained in the record, because we have held that a notice of appeal iseffective on the date of receipt by the district court clerk. See Hueb ner v. State, [108 Nev. 952] 107Nev. 328, 81 0 P.2d 1209 (1991). Rather than returning the notice of appeal to appellant, the clerk ofthe district court should have retained the notice of appeal in the record, and should have inform edappellant by letter of any perceived deficiencies in the docum ent. 4 Appellant could then have takenwhatever action was app ropriate to pursue his appeal.In light of the foregoing, w e conclude that app ellant timely subm itted to the clerk of the districtcourt a notice of app eal from an appealable order of the d istrict court, and that appellant's timelynotice of appeal is not con tained in the record due to the inappropriate action of the district courtclerk. Accordingly, we g rant appellant's petition for rehearing, and we proceed to address the m eritsof this appeal. Id. At 1232-1234. See also Barnes v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev.In and For Clark Cou nty, 748 P.2d 483, 103 Nev . 679 (Nev., 1987).

Plaintiff can app reciate that having filers and electronic filers follow specific practices mayaid in the orderly adm inistration of justice and conservation of judicial resources. Howev er, it appearsto be the Filing O ffice's stance that the eFlex User G uide, or perhaps som ething codified elsewhere,allows the clerks of the Second Judicial District Court to ignore N RCP 5(e) and m ake it such thatsomething as v ital as avoiding a statute of limitations expiration and securing a filing date shou ldcome down to whether the clerk at the filing office views, say, the distance between the two ho lespunched on o ne's papers to be outside the acceptable range? Or, that NRC P 5(e), can be ignoredbecause an attorney subm itted a singular pdf that contained two exhibits within it in addition to thepleading itself? One w onders whether these form requirements are legal requirements the violation of

4 7IFP Support

V2 58

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

60/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

61/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516

So, the Online Help say to add ALL the parties, or that you may, and the User Guide saysto add only the first plaintiff listed . Filing Office Clerk Mia sent Plaintiff an email one day in lateJune 2011, wherein she said she was denying or kicking back out Plaintiff's filing, and refusing togive a filing date even where Plaintiff really, really needed one to avoid the running of a statute oflimitations deadline, because of som ething like, the exhibits not being added as separate pd fs to theeFlex system, but rather included in one PD F with the com plaint.

Also, this document does no t contain any social security num ber or other inappropriatematerial pursuant to NRS 239B.030 an d the assertions is contains are made under penalty of perjury,

and Plaintiff swears to that.Dated this 8 t day of July, 2011.

/s/ Zach CoughlinPlaintiff, Zach Co ughlinIn Pro Per121 River Rock St.Reno, NV 89501171819202122232425262728

4 9IFP Support

V2 60

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

62/500

****** IMPO RTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORM ATION *****PROOF OF SERVICE O F ELECTRONIC FILINGA filing has been subm itted to the court RE : V11-01896Judge: RENT ADAMSOfficial File Stam p: 7-08-2011:23:55:11Clerk Accepted: 7-11-2011:08:15:27Court: econd Jud icial District Court - State of NevadaCase T itle: ACH COUG HLIN VS. WASHO E LEGALSERVICES ET AL. D6)Document s) Submitted: upplemental ...Filed By: ACHARY CO UGHLIN, ESQ.You m ay review this filing by clicking on the

following link to take you to your cas es.This notice was au tomatically generated by the courts auto-notification system .



V2.61

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

63/500

2

3

4

5

Document Code: 3860Zach Coughlin121 River Rock St.Reno, NV 89501Tele: 775-338-8118Fax no [email protected]

F I L EElectronically07-21-2011:04:05:05 PMHoward W. ConyersClerk of the CourtTransaction 2361079

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

2021

22

23

2425

Plaintiff Zach Coughlin, IN PRO PER

IN THE SECOND JUDICI L DISTRICT COURT OF THE ST TE OF NEV DIN ND FOR THE COUNTY OF W SHOE

ZACH COUGH LIN;Plaintiff,vs.WASH OE LEGAL SERVICES a NevadaCorporation, KATHY BRECK ENRIDGE,Individually and in her capacity as BoardPresident of WLS,TODD TORV INEN, Individually and in hiscapacity as WLS B oard Mem ber,PAUL ELCAN O, Individually and in hiscapacity as Executive Director of WLS, D OES1-100, Individually and in their capacity asmembers of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS O FWASHO E LEGAL SERVICES, CARYNSTERNLICHT, Individually and in hercapacity at WLS attorney, JON SA SSERIndividually and in his capacity at WL S agent,KAR EN SA BO Individually and in hercapacity at WLS attorney, MARC ASHLEYIndividually and in his capacity at WL Sattorney, ZANDR A LOPEZ Individually and inher capacity as WL S employee, DOES andROES 1-100. Defendants.

CASE NO: CV11 01896DEPT. NO: 6

REQUEST FOR SUBM ISSION OFMOTION FFID VIT IN SUPPORT ND

PPLIC TION TO PROCEED INFORM P UPERIS

26

27

28

1REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION

V2 62

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

64/500

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

IT IS requested that the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and the subsequent Affidavit inSupport of that Motion file on June 27 2011 and July 8 2011 respectively in the above titled matterbe subm itted to the C ourt for decision.Also this document does not contain any social security number or other inappropriate materialpursuant to NRS 239B.030. To the extent a notary is normally required but would not be for thereason that an attorney is the one making the signature a notary should prove unnecessary here.

Signed on__July 21_______ 2011.____________/S/ Zach Coughlin_______Signature of Plaintiff Zach Coughlin11

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

2021

22

23

2425

26

27

28

2REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION

V2 63

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

65/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

66/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

67/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

68/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

69/500

****** IMPO RTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORM ATION *****PROOF OF SERVICE O F ELECTRONIC FILINGA filing has been subm itted to the court RE : V11-01896Judge: RENT ADAMSOfficial File Stam p: 8-09-2011:17:46:06Clerk Accepted: 8-09-2011:17:46:32Court: econd Jud icial District Court - State of NevadaCase T itle: ACH COUG HLIN VS. WASHO E LEGALSERVICES ET AL. D6)Document s) Submitted: rd Grant in Forma PauperisFiled By: udrey KayYou m ay review this filing by clicking on the

following link to take you to your cas es.This notice was au tomatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.



V2 68

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

70/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

71/500V2 70

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

72/500V2 71

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

73/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

74/500V2 73

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

75/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

76/500V2 75

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

77/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

78/500V2 77

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

79/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

80/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

81/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

82/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

83/500V2 82

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

84/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

85/500V2 84

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

86/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

87/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

88/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

89/500V2 88

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

90/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

91/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

92/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

93/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

94/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

95/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

96/500V2 95

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

97/500V2 96

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

98/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

99/500V2 98

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

100/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

101/500V2 100

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

102/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

103/500V2 102

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

104/500V2 103

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

105/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

106/500V2 105

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

107/500V2 106

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

108/500V2 107

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

109/500V2 108

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

110/500V2 109

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

111/500V2 110

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

112/500V2 111

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

113/500V2 112

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

114/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

115/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

116/500V2 115

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

117/500V2 116

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

118/500V2 117

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

119/500V2 118

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

120/500V2 119

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

121/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

122/500V2 121

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

123/500V2 122

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

124/500V2 123

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

125/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

126/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

127/500V2 126

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

128/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

129/500V2 128

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

130/500V2 129

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

131/500V2 130

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

132/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

133/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

134/500V2 133

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

135/500V2 134

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

136/500V2 135

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

137/500V2 136

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

138/500V2 137

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

139/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

140/500V2 139

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

141/500V2 140

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

142/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

143/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

144/500V2 143

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

145/500V2 144

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

146/500V2 145

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

147/500V2 146

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

148/500V2 147

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

149/500V2 148

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

150/500V2 149

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

151/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

152/500V2 151

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

153/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

154/500V2 153

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

155/500V2 154

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

156/500V2 155

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

157/500V2 156

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

158/500V2 157

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

159/500V2 158

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

160/500V2 159

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

161/500V2 160

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

162/500V2 161

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

163/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

164/500V2 163

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

165/500V2 164

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

166/500V2 165

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

167/500V2 166

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

168/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

169/500V2 168

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

170/500V2 169

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

171/500V2 170

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

172/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

173/500V2 172

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

174/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

175/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

176/500V2 175

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

177/500V2 176

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

178/500V2 177

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

179/500V2 178

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

180/500V2 179

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

181/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

182/500V2 181

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

183/500V2 182

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

184/500V2 183

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

185/500V2 184

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

186/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

187/500V2 186

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

188/500V2 187

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

189/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

190/500

F I L EElectronically11-15-2011:08:53:07 AMCraig FrandenClerk of the CourtTransaction 2588920

V2 189

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

191/500V2 190

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

192/500V2 191

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

193/500V2 192

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

194/500V2 193

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

195/500V2 194

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

196/500V2 195

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

197/500V2 196

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

198/500


V2 197

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

199/500V2 198

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

200/500V2 199

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

201/500

****** IMPO RTANT NOTICE - READ THIS INFORM ATION *****PROOF OF SERVICE O F ELECTRONIC FILINGA filing has been subm itted to the court RE : V11-01896Judge: RENT ADAMSOfficial File Stam p: 1-15-2011:08:53:07Clerk Accepted: 1-15-2011:09:09:22Court: econd Jud icial District Court - State of NevadaCase T itle: ACH COUG HLIN VS. WASHO E LEGALSERVICES ET AL. D6)Document s) Submitted: otion

- ContinuationFiled By: OSEPH G ARIN, ESQ.

You m ay review this filing by clicking on thefollowing link to take you to your cas es.

This notice was au tomatically generated by the courts auto-notification system.

If service is not required for this document e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.The following people were served electronically:JOSEPH GAR IN, ESQ. for PAUL ELCANOThe following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditionalme ans see Nevad a electronic filing rules):

SHANNON NORDSTROM, ESQPROPER PERSONWASHOE LEGAL SERVICES

V2.200

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

202/500


V2.201

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

203/500V2 202

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

204/500V2 203

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

205/500V2 204

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

206/500V2 205

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

207/500V2 206

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

208/500V2 207

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

209/500V2 208

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

210/500


V2 209

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

211/500V2 210

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

212/500V2 211

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

213/500


V2 212

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

214/500V2 213

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

215/500V2 214

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

216/500V2 215

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

217/500V2 216

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

218/500V2 217

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

219/500V2 218

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

220/500V2 219

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

221/500V2 220

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

222/500V2 221

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

223/500V2 222

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

224/500V2 223

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

225/500V2 224

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

226/500V2 225

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

227/500V2 226

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

228/500V2 227

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

229/500V2 228

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

230/500V2 229

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

231/500


EXHIBIT ContinuedV2 230

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

232/500V2 231

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

233/500V2 232

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

234/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

235/500V2 234

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

236/500V2 235

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

237/500V2 236

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

238/500V2 237

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

239/500V2 238

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

240/500V2 239

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

241/500V2 240

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

242/500V2 241

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

243/500V2 242

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

244/500V2 243

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

245/500V2 244

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

246/500V2 245

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

247/500V2 246

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

248/500V2 247

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

249/500V2 248

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

250/500


- Continuation- Continuation- Continuation

Filed By: OSEPH G ARIN, ESQ.You m ay review this filing by clicking on thefollowing link to take you to your cas es.


If service is not required for this document e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.The following people were served electronically:

JOSEPH GAR IN, ESQ. for PAUL ELCANOThe following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditionalme ans see Nevad a electronic filing rules):

SHANNON NORDSTROM, ESQPROPER PERSONWASHOE LEGAL SERVICES

V2.249

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

251/500

F I L EElectronically11-21-2011:04:55:57 PMCraig FrandenClerk of the CourtTransaction 2603171

V2 250

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

252/500V2 251

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

253/500V2 252

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

254/500V2 253

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

255/500V2 254

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

256/500V2 255

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

257/500V2 256

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

258/500


V2.257

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

259/500V2 258

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

260/500V2 259

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

261/500


V2 260

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

262/500V2 261

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

263/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

264/500

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

265/500V2 264

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

266/500


- Continuation- Continuation



If service is not required for this document e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.The following people were served electronically:JOSEPH GAR IN, ESQ. for KAREN SA BO, PAULELCANO

The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditionalme ans see Nevad a electronic filing rules):

SHANNON NORDSTROM, ESQWASHOE LEGAL SERVICESTODD TORVINENMARC ASHLEYPROPER PERSONJON SASSER

V2.265

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

267/500

PAUL ELCANOTAHOE W OMEN S SERVICESCOMMITTEE TO AID ABUSED W OMENCARYN STERNLIGHTBOARD OF DIRECTORS OF W ASHOE LEGALSERVICESZANDRA LOPEZKATHY BRECKENRIDGE

V2 266

7/27/2019 9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 ROA Vol 2 01168 60317 01896

268/500


- Continuation- Continuation- Continuation



If service is not required for this document e.g., Minutes), please disregard the below language.The following people were served electronically:

JOSEPH GAR IN, ESQ. for KAREN SA BO, PAULELCANO, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE

The following people have not been served electronically and must be served by traditionalme ans see Nevad a electronic filing rules):

SHANNON NORDSTROM, ESQWASHOE LEGAL SERVICESTODD TORVINENMARC ASHLE

9 18 12 0204 62337 60302 roa vol 2 01168 60317 01896

Documents