From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. McDaniel

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Sep 9, 2010
3: 09-cv-0375-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 9, 2010)

Opinion

3: 09-cv-0375-HDM-VPC.

September 9, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Seventh Judicial District. (#1-2). Respondents removed the action to this court on July 10, 2009. (Docket #1.)

Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings, however, must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d. 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), a federal court must dismiss a prisoner's claim, "if the allegation of poverty is untrue," or if the action "is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the court applies the same standard under § 1915 when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or an amended complaint. When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d. 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Laboratory Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this determination, the court takes as true all allegations of material fact stated in the complaint, and the court construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id., see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).

All or part of a complaint filed by a prisoner may therefore be dismissed sua sponte if the prisoner's claims lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).

Screening of Complaint

On June 28, 2010, this court entered an order dismissing one cause of action and two defendants in the original amended complaint. (Docket #11.) The court gave plaintiff an opportunity to file a second amended complaint, explaining to plaintiff how to do so. Id. Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on July 12, 2010. (Docket #14.) The court found this second amended complaint to be internally inconsistent, because although plaintiff listed two causes of action in the body of the complaint, he attached a supporting memorandum in which he listed five causes of action. Id. The court granted plaintiff one last opportunity to file a comprehensible complaint. On August 23, 2010, plaintiff filed his third amended complaint. (Docket #19.)

A. Defendants

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that "[a] person `subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made." Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff names as defendants in his third amended complaint E. K. McDaniel, Ronald Bryant, Greg Martin, and Michael Lee. Plaintiff has connected each of these four defendants with some affirmative act or omission alleged in his third amended complaint.

B. First Cause of Action

In his first cause of action, plaintiff alleges cruel and unusual punishment in general and excessive force in particular, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that on December 31, 2008, Sgt. Bryant placed him in full restraints, handcuffs and shackles, and took him to the administrative medical lockdown unit. Plaintiff claims that during the transfer, Sgt. Bryant held him, kicking and striking him from behind, while Officer Lee struck plaintiff in the face, chest and abdomen. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained major bruises, swelling of his face, and a broken nose. Plaintiff further claims that Sgt. Bryant held him down to be x-rayed eighteen times in a row front and back, exposing him to very high levels of chemical radiation.

When a prison official stands accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment, the question turns on whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986)). In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it is proper to consider factors such as the need for application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of the forceful response. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. The extent of a prisoner's injury is also a factor that may suggest whether the use of force could plausibly have been thought necessary in a particular situation. Id. Although the absence of serious injury is relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, it is not determinative. Id. That is, use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the prisoner does not suffer serious injury. Id. at 9. Although an inmate need not have suffered serious injury to bring an excessive force claim against a prison official, "[not] every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9. "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers, violates a prisoner's constitutional rights." Id. (citing Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.) ( cert. denied sub nom. Johnson, 414 U.S. 1033 (1973)). The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimus uses of physical force. Id. at 9-10.

The court finds that construing the alleged facts in plaintiff's favor, as it must, the second cause of action states a colorable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendants Sgt. Bryant and Officer Lee.

C. Second Cause of Action

Plaintiff alleges that on December 31, 2008, Officers Bryant and Lee held him down while Dr. Greg Martin probed plaintiff's anal region. Plaintiff states that after the probing did not result in the finding of any contraband, he was housed naked in a lockdown cell for six days without any necessities or running water. Plaintiff further claims that he asked Dr. Martin for medical treatment to stop the bleeding from the assault and the anal probing, but was refused treatment.

A prisoner's claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The "deliberate indifference" standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, "sufficiently serious." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must act with a "sufficiently culpable state of mind," which entails more than mere negligence, but less than conduct undertaken for the very purpose of causing harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Id.

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a prisoner's civil rights have been abridged, "the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere `indifference,' `negligence,' or `medical malpractice' will not support this cause of action." Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. "[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). A prisoner's mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).

In the present case, the court finds that plaintiff's second cause of action states a colorable Eighth Amendment medical care claim against Defendant Martin, and a colorable Eighth Amendment Excessive Force Claim against Defendants Bryant, Lee and Martin.

D. Third Cause of Action

Plaintiff alleges that when he asked to speak with Warden E. K. McDaniel after the attacks of December 31, 2008, defendants Bryant and Lee admitted to him that they had been organizing a malicious assault on him. He further claims that defendant McDaniel gave orders to maliciously attack him, endangering his health and safety. The court finds that plaintiff states a colorable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant McDaniel. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall electronically serve a copy of this order, including the attached Notice of Intent to Proceed with Mediation form, along with a copy of plaintiff's third amended complaint, on the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, to the attention of Pamela Sharp.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED defendants shall file and serve an answer or other response to the complaint within thirty (30) days following the date of the early inmate mediation. If the court declines to mediate this case, an answer or other response shall be due within thirty (30) days following the order declining mediation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties SHALL DETACH, COMPLETE, AND FILE the attached Notice of Intent to Proceed with Mediation form on or before thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that henceforth, Plaintiff shall serve upon defendants or, if an appearance has been entered by counsel, upon their attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion or other document submitted for consideration by the court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to the defendants or counsel for defendants. If counsel has entered a notice of appearance, the plaintiff shall direct service to the individual attorney named in the notice of appearance, at the address stated therein. The Court may disregard any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge which has not been filed with the Clerk, and any paper received by a district judge, magistrate judge or the Clerk which fails to include a certificate showing proper service.

DATED: September 8, 2010 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROCEED WITH MEDIATION

______________________________ Name ______________________________ Prison Number (if applicable) ______________________________ Address ______________________________ ______________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ______________________________________, ) Case No. ______________________________ Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ______________________________________ ) ______________________________________ ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________) This case may be referred to the District of Nevada's early inmate mediation program. The purpose of this notice is to assess the suitability of this case for mediation. Mediation is a process by which the parties meet with an impartial court-appointed mediator in an effort to bring about an expedient resolution that is satisfactory to all parties. 1. Do you wish to proceed to early mediation in this case? _____ Yes _____ No 2. If no, please state the reason(s) you do not wish to proceed with mediation? ______ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. List any and all cases, including the case number, that plaintiff has filed in federal or state court in the last five years and the nature of each case. (Attach additional pages if needed). ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. List any and all cases, including the case number, that are currently pending or any pending grievances concerning issues or claims raised in this case. (Attach additional pages if needed). ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Are there any other comments you would like to express to the court about whether this case is suitable for mediation. You may include a brief statement as to why you believe this case is suitable for mediation. (Attach additional pages if needed). ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ This form shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court on or before thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order. Counsel for defendants: By signing this form you are certifying to the court that you have consulted with a representative of the Nevada Department of Corrections concerning participation in mediation.

Dated this _____ day of ______________________________, 2010.

__________________________________________________ Signature __________________________________________________ Name of person who prepared or helped prepare this document

"THIRD AMENDED" CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Jury trial Demanded A. JURISDICTION

MARION ANDERSON P.O. BOX 1989 ELY, NV 89301 ELY state prison/ELY, NEVADA 12-31-2008 12-31-2008 12-31-2008 1) This complaint alleges that the civil rights of Plaintiff, , (Print Plaintiff's name) who presently resides at , were violated by the actions of the below named individuals which were directed against Plaintiff at on the following dates (institution/city where violation occurred) , , and . (Count I) (Count II) (Count III)

Make a copy of this page to provide the below information if you are naming more than five (5) defendants

E.K. MCDANIEL et, al. ELY state prison warden this defendant over sees ely state prison, and employed by the state of nevada. RONAID BRYANT ELY state prison C.E.R.T./SGT: this defendant is employed by the state of nevada at: ELY state prison MICHEAL LEE ELY state prison male offices this defendant is employed by the state of nevada at: ELY state prison GREG MARTIN ELY state prison Medical physician this defendant is employed by the state of nevada at: ELY state prison 28 U.S.C. § 1343 42 U.S.C. § 1983 2) Defendant , resides at , (full name of first defendant) (address if first defendant) and is employed as . This defendant is sued in his/her (defendant's position and title, if any) individual official capacity. (Check one or both). Explain how this defendant was acting under color of law: 3) Defendant resides at , (full name of first defendant) (address if first defendant) and is employed as . This defendant is sued in his/her (defendant's position and title, if any) individual official capacity. (Check one or both). Explain how this defendant was acting under color of law: 4) Defendant resides at (full name of first defendant) (address if first defendant) and is employed as . This defendant is sued in his/her (defendant's position and title, if any) individual official capacity. (Check one or both). Explain how this defendant was acting under color of law: 5) Defendant resides at (full name of first defendant) (address if first defendant) and is employed as . This defendant is sued in his/her (defendant's position and title, if any) individual official capacity. (Check one or both). Explain how this defendant was acting under color of law: 6) Defendant ______________________________ resides at ______________________________, (full name of first defendant) (address if first defendant) and is employed as ______________________________. This defendant is sued in his/her (defendant's position and title, if any) _____ individual _____ official capacity. (Check one or both). Explain how this defendant was acting under color of law: ________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 7) Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to (a)(3) and . If you wish to assert jurisdiction under different or additional statutes, list them below. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________

B. NATURE OF THE CASE

1) Briefly state the background of your case.

on 12-31-08 Anderson was placed in full-restraints, handcoffs and shackks, SGT, Rooald Bryant took Anderson to the administrative medical lockdown unit. Woring the transfer from visiting to lockdown, SGT: Ronald Bryant held anderson, woking and striking him from behind, while officer; micheal LEE, strock anderson in the face and abdemen, chest. Anderson sustained main brusiness, swelling of this face, and a broken case. This maliciausly assault contained when SGT: Ronald Bryant held anderson down to the x-payed 18 times in a row, exposing Anderson to chunical radiation. DR. GREG martin along with SGT: Ronald Byrant, and officer LEE, held me and began to prebe inside my anal region in which everything was unwarranted and onsuccessfol, for whatever reason. Anderson was then cefosed medical treatment for the bleeding of face and anal regien. which violates my U.S. Civil Rights.

C. CAUSE OF ACTION COUNT I

The following civil rights has been violated: Eighth Amendment Excessive force

Supporting Facts: [Include all fact you consider important. State the facts clearly, in your own words, and without citing legal authority or argument. Be sure you describe exactly what each specific defendant (by name) did to violate your rights].
on 12-31-08 i was placed in full-restraints, backoffs and shackles, and officers: SGT: Ronald Bryant took me. to the administrative medical lockdown unit. During the transfer from visiting to lockdown, SGT: Ronald Bryant held me, kicking and striking me from behind, while officer: micheal lee struck me in the face, chest and abdomen, i sustained mader brusiness, swelling of my face, and a broken, nose, however this maliciously attack continued when officer Ronald Bryant held me down to be x-rayed (18) times in a row back and front.

COUNT II

The following civil rights has been violated: Eighth Amendment crvel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Supporting Facts: [Include all fact you consider important. State the facts clearly, in your own words, and without citing legal authority or argument. Be sure you describe exactly what each specific defendant (by name) did to violate your rights].
on 12-31-08 officers, Ronald Bryant and micheal Lee held me down in a medical lockdown unit when DR-GREG martin Removed my parts and underpants, and DR Greg martin began to probe my anal region, with his finger's officer Ronald bryant continved to apply pressore on my head and neck, so that i could no longer look to see what was going on behind me. As all i would do was call not for help, hoping someone passing by would hear my cry. However when this search was useless i was housed in a lockdown cell in the medical unit completely naked for(6) six days without any necessitys, or running water. I then asked Dr. Greg martin for medical treatment to stop all the bleeding from the assauitt and anal probing. And i was again refosed help or treatment.

COUNT III

The following civil rights has been violated: Eighth Amendment willful and intentional tort.

Supporting Facts: [Include all fact you consider important. State the facts clearly, in your own words, and without citing legal authority or argument. Be sure you describe exactly what each specific defendant (by name) did to violate your rights].
on 12-31-08 i ask to speak to the warden: E.K. McDaniel, after these attacks on me, SGT. Bryant and officer: LEE forther admitted that: Bryant, LEE and mcDaniel had been discussing and organizing a malicious assautt on me that worden mcDoniel gave orders to maliciously attack me endangering my health and safety. I no not what else to do, when i have done nothing wrong or broken no laws.

D. PREVIOUS LAWSUIT AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

same or similar facts dismissed because it was determined to be frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted? Douglas c. Gillespie U.S. Dist coulrt 2:07-cv-01119-RCJ(CRC) opening legal mail outside of inmate present 06/05/07 01/03/08 2006-28-55783 ELY state prison 02/05/09 Sanctions shall stand

1) Have you filed other actions in state or federal courts involving the as involved in this action? _____ Yes No. If your answer is "Yes", describe each lawsuit. (If more than one, describe the others on an additional page following the below outline). a) Defendants: _____________________________________________________________________________ b) Name of court and docket number: ________________________________________________________ c) Disposition (for example, was the case dismissed, appealed or is it still pending?): _________________________________________________________________________________________ d) Issues raised: __________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ e) Approximate date it was filed: ______________________________ f) Approximate date of disposition: ______________________________ 2) Have you filed an action in federal court that was Yes _____ No. If your answer is "Yes", describe each lawsuit. (If you had more than three actions dismissed based on the above reasons, describe the others on an additional page following the below outline.) Lawsuit #1 dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim: a) Defendants: b) Name of court and case number: . c) The case was dismissed because it was found to be (check one): _____ frivolous _____ malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. d) Issues raised: . _________________________________________________________________________________________ e) Approximate date it was filed: f) Approximate date of disposition: Lawsuit #2 dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim: a) Defendants: _____________________________________________________________________________. b) Name of court and case number: __________________________________________________________. c) The case was dismissed because it was found to be (check one): _____ frivolous _____ malicious or _____ failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. d) Issues raised: __________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ e) Approximate date it was filed: ______________________________ f) Approximate date of disposition: ______________________________ Lawsuit #3 dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim: a) Defendants: _____________________________________________________________________________. b) Name of court and case number: __________________________________________________________. c) The case was dismissed because it was found to be (check one): _____ frivolous _____ malicious or _____ failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. d) Issues raised: __________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ e) Approximate date it was filed: ______________________________ f) Approximate date of disposition: ______________________________ 3) Have you attempted to resolve the dispute stated in this action by seeking relief from the proper administrative officials, e.g., have you exhausted available administrative grievance procedures? Yes _____ No. If your answer is "No", did you not attempt administrative relief because the dispute involved the validity of a: (1) _____ disciplinary hearing; (2) _____ state or federal court decision; (3) _____ state or federal law or regulation; (4) _____ parole board decision; or (5) _____ other _________________________________________________________. If your answer is "Yes", provide the following information. Grievance Number . Date and institution where grievance was filed . Response to grievance: . ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________

E. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

I believe that I am entitled to the following relief:

(1) Judgments and monetary awards from each defendants, Jointly and severally in the amont of #50,000 FIFTY-THOUSAND dollors each which has found to have caused deprivation as alleged; intiational Excessive force, and cruel and unusual ponishment. (2) Judgments and owards to plaintiff as defermined at trial, of compensatory and/or exemplary monetary damages, from each personal individual defendant. where alleged conduct, acts, torts and events are found to be willful, intennoal, or mativelte by earlice in will or will tort In the amount of #50,000 dollars each. Awards of all costs, fees, expenses and debts incorred by plaintiff.

I understand that a false statement or answer to any question in this complaint will subject me to penalties of perjury. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and 18 U.S.C. § 1621.Manior Anderson 8-17-10

______________________________________ (Name of Person who prepared or helped (Signature of Plaintiff) prepare this complaint if not Plaintiff) _________ (Date) (Additional space if needed; identify what is being continued) ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________


Summaries of

Anderson v. McDaniel

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Sep 9, 2010
3: 09-cv-0375-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 9, 2010)
Case details for

Anderson v. McDaniel

Case Details

Full title:MARION ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. E. K. McDANIEL, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Sep 9, 2010

Citations

3: 09-cv-0375-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 9, 2010)