Tuesday, June 23, 2020 - Las Vegas - Court of Appeals
Slaughter vs. State, Dep’t of Corr.
Docket Number: 74447- COA
Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m. - Court of Appeals
This appeal arises from a civil rights complaint filed by appellant Rickie Slaughter alleging that Respondents violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Slaughter asserts that the prison guards at the High Desert State Prison, where he was incarcerated, organized and instigated a race-based prison riot by lifting a lockdown in Slaughter’s unit. To disperse the riot, the guards fired live shotgun rounds, which struck and injured Slaughter. After the riot, Respondents initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Slaughter for his alleged participation in the riot. Slaughter filed a complaint alleging that Respondents violated his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment by organizing the race-based riot, his First Amendment right by preventing him from calling witnesses at his disciplinary hearing, and his due process rights. Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint under NRCP 12(b)(5). The district court granted Respondents’ motion, finding that Slaughter failed to properly allege facts supporting his claims, and thus Respondents are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court further found that Slaughter’s due process claim was moot because he already received relief in his separate habeas case.
ISSUES:
ISSUES: (1) Did the district court err when it granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss as a matter of law? (2) Did the district court err when it determined that Slaughter’s due process and civil conspiracy claim were moot because he received partial relief in a separate habeas corpus petition before another court?
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.
Green vs. Lindberg
Docket Number: 78002- COA
Las Vegas - 11:00 am. - Court of Appeals
This appeal arises from a civil rights complaint filed by Dushon Green alleging that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. While incarcerated, Green ordered specialty shoes to help alleviate chronic foot pain as authorized by defendants. Despite the authorization, Green asserted that defendants confiscated his shoes as unauthorized property upon arrival. Green alleged that he filed an internal complaint with defendants before filing his complaint. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that, as evidenced by Green’s grievance history report, Green failed to fully exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his complaint. In response, Green argued that he exhausted his administrative remedies and that defendants failed to properly maintain his grievance history report because it did not include his internal complaint. The district court granted summary judgment, concluding that Green failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
ISSUES:
ISSUE: Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment for defendants because Green failed to exhaust his remedies under the prison grievance system before filing a civil rights complaint when there is a dispute as to whether his grievance history report is deficient?
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.
Williams III vs. Clear Recon Copr.
Docket Number: 77112-COA
Las Vegas - 1:30 p.m. - Court of Appeals
Leon Dudley Williams, III, as trustee for the L.D.W. III R.E. Living Trust, appeals from a district court order granting summary judgment in a foreclosure action.
ISSUES:
On appeal, Williams argues that (1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a rehearing; and (2) he was not properly served with the summary judgment motion pursuant to local rules.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.
Amado vs. Martinez
Docket Number: 79122-COA
Las Vegas - 2:30 p.m. - Court of Appeals
Giano Amado appeals a district court order awarding Jennifer Martinez sole legal and sole physical custody of their child. Martinez and Amado have each exercised both sole legal and sole physical custody and joint legal and joint physical custody of their child at various times since her birth. At a status hearing, Amado, apparently frustrated that an evidentiary hearing would not be held for many months, stated that he wanted to relinquish his parental rights. The district court then changed custody and awarded Martinez sole legal and sole physical custody without making any findings.
ISSUES:
On appeal, Amado claims that the district court denied him a full and fair hearing and did not determine the best interest of the child before the court altered the custody arrangement and eliminated all of his parenting time. Amado also argues that the district court exhibited improper bias and a new district court judge should be assigned to this case if it is remanded.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.