This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case for general purpose appointment of counsel to Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that Nevada Department of Corrections, Defendants, violated the First and Eighth Amendment. Defendants unreasonably searched and seized his legal work in retaliation for filing a grievance against them. In addition, they withheld and/or disposed of legal mail, so that he would miss filing deadlines for his lawsuit. Officers used excessive force when they slammed his head into the bunk. Then they handcuffed him and punched him repeatedly in the face. During the attack, officers caused permanent damage to his arm by twisting it and gave him two black eyes. The hospital took x-rays and documented his injuries. Prison officials then falsely imprisoned Plaintiff in maximum security prison when he was classified as a minimum security inmate. They did this in retaliation. The Department failed to answer his grievances within 45 days as required by AR 740. In June, 2016, the parties had a Settlement Conference, but it was unsuccessful. Plaintiff’s retaliation and excessive force claims survived summary judgment. Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction and restraining order were denied. There is a Jury Trial on August 8, 2017 in Reno. Documents available for review: Complaint, Answer, MSJ documents, Screening Order
Case Number: 2016-005583
Case Number: 2017-003033
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case referred to the Federal Pro Bono Program for general purpose appointment of counsel to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. Plaintiff claims eighth amendment violations while incarcerated at Southern Desert Correctional Center. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs left him blind in one eye. Defendants delayed his cataract eye surgery by three months, which caused an infection to develop and blind him. He even put Defendant on notice several times about his need of surgery and that it was delayed. But they did nothing until it was too late. Mediation was attempted but not successful. Documents available for review: Amended Complaint, Answer, Screening Order, Docket Sheet, Referral Order.
Case Number: 2017-003598
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case referred to the Federal Pro Bono Program for general purpose appointment of counsel to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. He brings this action against the sheriff and twenty other individual Police Department officers for: 1) excessive use of force under the Fourth Amendment, 2) assault and battery, 3) intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, and 4) negligence. Plaintiff alleges that detectives harassed and threatened his friends and family for a month prior to the officers locating him. On August 26, 2009, officers found plaintiff on the bathroom floor lying on his stomach. He only had boxers on. Officers brutally punched and kicked Plaintiff into submission. They beat him with a canister until he fainted. They beat him with such force that his nose collapsed into his face. They beat him until they broke his shoulder off. Thereafter, Plaintiff was taken to the hospital where doctors had to stitch his face back together, pull his nose out, treat multiple lacerations, and perform surgery on his shoulder. On February 21, 2014, the court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied. In April of 2015, Plaintiff appealed the order for reconsideration. In August 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded Judgment. Documents available for review: Screening Order, Referral Order, Complaint, Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order Denying Reconsideration, and Ninth Circuit Order.
Case Number: 2016-005069
This is a case referred to the Federal Pro Bono Program for general purpose appointment of counsel to Plaintiff. This case arises out of foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff’s property in Henderson. In October 2011, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a modification agreement to reduce Plaintiff’s monthly payments and interest rate. Thereafter, Defendant attempted to force Plaintiff to sign another modification agreement to increase the payments and interest. They called Plaintiff at all hours of the day. Plaintiff refused their offer. He was never behind on his monthly payments and continued paying. However, Defendant then began returning his payments and foreclosed on Plaintiff’s home. Defendant did not even come to the mediation with documentation. In December 2014, Defendant removed the instant action to this Court. Plaintiff amended his Complaint asserting the following claims against Bank and Servicer: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) specific performance; (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Judge Navarro has granted Defendant Servicer’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Clerk’s Judgment has been entered in favor of Servicer. Defendant Bank’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s claim for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing survives. Documents available for review: Complaint, Amended Complaint, Answer from Bank, Summary Judgment Order, and Referral to Pro bono Program Minutes.