This case involves an appeal from a child support ruling. This case was previously on appeal in Docket No. 79386-COA. The district court, on remand, was to determine whether child support remained at $0 a month or reverted back to $300 a month, which is what was initially set as the monthly amount in the decree of divorce. Appellant previously sought to modify physical custody and additionally sought to modify child support. Due to confusion on the issue, the court previously had temporarily set the child support payments to $0 a month while the issue was resolved. The district court examined this history on remand and determined that once the prior court had determined that there was no basis to modify the controlling support obligation, the amount should have reverted to $300. The district court clarified that the child support obligation reverted to $300 a month effective July 2019. Appellant now appeals that decision pro se. Respondent is also proceeding pro se.
Case Number: 2020-021565
Case Number: 2021-007563
The parties were married and have two children. The divorce decree provides for shared custody. Appellant filed a motion to change custody and/or visitation alleging that respondent fails to recognize one of the children’s special medical needs and fails to provide necessary care. The district court denied the motion, and appellant appeals. Order number is 82444
Case Number: 2021-007610
This is a contested divorce action involving the custody of a minor child.
After trial respondent was granted sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor child, and was allowed to relocate with the minor child to Oregon. Appellant resides in Nevada. No visitation was ordered in the decree. Order number is 81887
Case Number: 2020-009890
Case No. 2:18-cv-01184-JCM-EJY
The SAC alleges the following: In April 1999, a woman alleged sexual assault against plaintiff. (ECF No. 15 at 15). LVMPD conducted a sexual assault nurse examiner (“SANE”) medical exam. (Id.) The sexual assault kit concluded no definitive signs of sexual assault and LVMPD impounded the medical kit into evidence. (Id.) In June 1999, LVMPD closed the case. (Id.) LVMPD never disposed of the kit. (Id.) Seventeen years later, LVMPD processed the SANE medical kit, identified plaintiff, and arrested plaintiff in 2017. From April 17, 2017 through June 9, 2019, Doe CCDC/LVMPD classification committee members held plaintiff in solitary confinement for 406 days without a classification hearing. (ECF No. 15 at 39). Plaintiff remained in 23-hour lockdown as a pretrial detainee. The court finds that plaintiff states a colorable due process claim because Doe classification committee appears to have punished plaintiff for 406 days by holding plaintiff in solitary confinement without a hearing. The court finds that plaintiff states a colorable excessive force claim. Based on the allegations, 3 officers dragged plaintiff, who was restrained, up the stairs, into a cell, dropped him onto the concrete floor from three feet above, and injured him. The court finds that plaintiff states colorable conditions of confinement claims based on lack of exercise while in solitary confinement and for having improper footwear for four months. This claim will proceed against two defendants (for exercise) and Doe officers who denied plaintiff proper footwear (when he learns their identities). Lt./Sgt. Doe entered the cage and asked plaintiff whether plaintiff could see without his reading glasses. (Id.) When plaintiff responded that he could not really see without them, Doe officer responded, “then you better take care of them; it would be a shame if something happened to them.” (Id.)Plaintiff’s cell contained over 1,000 pages of legal material as well as legal handbooks and legal dictionaries. (Id. at 62). When plaintiff returned to his cell, he saw all of his legal documents dumped into three piles and noticed that his legal books had been taken from him. (Id. at 63). When plaintiff asked why, one of the officers responded that everything would be written on the property receipt form. (Id.) Plaintiff noticed that some of his legal documents had been torn and that all of the staples in his documents had been removed or torn off the corners. (Id. at 63-64). The property receipt only stated “books and papers placed in property.” The court finds that plaintiff states a colorable Fourth Amendment strip search claim. Based on the allegations, Doe officers may have conducted the strip search in a harassing matter because of plaintiff’s role as a jail house lawyer.