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. Latest Update: The defendant thinks the parties have reached a potential settlement agreement and has filed a motion to enforce settlement. The plaintiff is currently refusing mail. There is no trial date currently set. 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: 2017-004791
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. He brings this action against several officers for using excessive force and violating his constitutional right to informational privacy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants surrounded his vehicle in a casino parking lot, broke out the windows of his vehicle, dragged him through the broken window, and proceeded to punch and kick him while he was laying helpless on the ground in handcuffs. Plaintiff also alleges that a Sergeant instructed the officers to use extreme force. In addition to the excessive force claim, Plaintiff brings a claim against one officer for violating his constitutional right to informational privacy. He alleges that the officer left Plaintiff’s criminal file, which contained his name, date of birth, social security number, and other confidential information, in the back seat of the car Plaintiff was driving when arrested. The file was still in the car when returned back to the registered owner, who was not the Plaintiff. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is pending. Documents available for review: Complain, Screening Order, Answer, Motion to Dismiss, Referral Order
Case Number: 2017-005281
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. He brings this action against several officers alleging they violated his Eighth Amendment rights regarding his conditions of confinement during flooding at the detention center. On January 9, 2013, a defective toilet overflowed at the detention center. The overflow spread throughout the module and it was locked down. Plaintiff was part of the clean-up crew, and he and other inmates mopped, swept, scooped, and squeegeed the overflown water down a drain. He claims the water was contaminated with human waste. He was wearing his shower shoes—open-toed sandals—and was denied additional protective equipment. When he asked for more protective equipment, he was told to stop complaining and to get back to work. He filed grievances to the module supervisor, who apologized for failing to provide protective equipment and said he would do better in the future. When the same toilet overflowed two weeks later, Plaintiff attests, it was déjà vu all over again. Defendants claim the water was clear and free of any human waste. Plaintiff’s case is post summary judgment. Documents available for review: Amended Complaint, Answer, Screening Order, MSJ, Opposition to MSJ, Reply to MSJ, Referral & Summary Judgment Order