Automated Summary
Key Facts
Antonio Goodwin filed multiple motions in this civil case against AT&T, including motions for appointment of counsel, document removal, and supplementation of the record. The United States Magistrate Judge denied most motions as lacking legal basis, but granted the motion to strike erroneously filed exhibit ECF No. 167 from the docket. The order was signed on December 29, 2025.
Issues
- Court denied Plaintiff's motions to supplement the record with communications with Supreme Court Clerk's Office and criminal charges against AT&T. Supplementation requires good cause and leave of court under Local Rule 7-2(g), which Plaintiff failed to establish.
- Court denied Plaintiff's motion for courtesy reminder as it lacked legal basis. Plaintiff inquired about judgment status and sought correction of separately filed exhibits, but ECF No. 156 was clearly associated with ECF No. 155, creating no ambiguity to correct. Rambling arguments about evidence and PACER access seek no actionable relief.
- Court denied Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel because the motion consisted only of a title without any points and authorities, failing to comply with Local Rule 7-2(a) requirements.
- Court granted Plaintiff's motion to strike ECF No. 167 from the docket using inherent power to control the docket. Court denied other motions to remove ECF Nos. 168 and 169 as duplicative, noting Plaintiff intended to file with Ninth Circuit but accidentally filed with this Court.
Holdings
The Court denies Plaintiff Antonio Goodwin's motions for courtesy reminder (ECF No. 160), appointment of counsel (ECF No. 165), to remove documents (ECF Nos. 169, 170), and to supplement the record (ECF Nos. 171, 172, 173). The Court grants Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 168) in part to the extent it seeks to strike Plaintiff's erroneously filed exhibit at ECF No. 167 from the docket.
Remedies
The Court granted Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 168) in part to the extent it seeks to strike Plaintiff's erroneously filed exhibit at ECF No. 167 from the docket, using its inherent power to control the docket.
Legal Principles
The Court applied its inherent power to control the docket to strike an erroneously filed exhibit (ECF No. 167) from the record, citing Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) and Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110-11 (D. Nev. 1988). The Court also referenced Local Rule IA 7-1(a) regarding inquiry into motion status and LR 7-2(g) regarding supplementation without leave of court.
Precedent Name
- Metzger v. Hussman
- Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc.
Judge Name
Daniel J. Albregts
Passage Text
- Local Rule IA 7-1(a) provides the mechanism by which Plaintiff may inquire into the status of a motion, which is by letter not motion.
- because the Court finds that all but one of Plaintiff's motions lacks a legal basis for the Court to grant them, the Court denies them.
- IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions (ECF Nos. 160, 165, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173) are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 168) is granted in part to the extent it seeks to strike Plaintiff's erroneously filed exhibit at ECF No. 167.