Opinion
3:10-cv-00474-HDM-VPC.
November 17, 2010
ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted (docket #1). The court now reviews the complaint.
I. Screening Standard
Pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), federal courts must dismiss a prisoner's claims, "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). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).
Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the court applies the same standard under Section 1915(e)(2) when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or amended complaint. 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). A complaint must contain more than a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). "The pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action." Id. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
Allegations in a pro se complaint 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, 520-21 (1972) ( per curiam); see also Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). All or part of a complaint filed by a prisoner may be dismissed sua sponte, however, 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, 490 U.S. at 327-28; see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
To sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right." Hydrick v. Hunter, 466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cir. 2006).
II. Instant Complaint
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Ely State Prison ("ESP"), has sued Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC") Deputy Director Lori Bagwell, and the following Nevada State Prison ("NSP") personnel: Warden Bill Donat, Associate Warden James Baca, corrections officer E. Peterman and unit caseworker Nancy Flores. Plaintiff alleges that while he was at NSP, officer Peterman retaliated against him by destroying his legal files, which deprived him of access to the courts. He claims that the remaining defendants all denied his grievances regarding the loss of his files. Plaintiff claims that he suffered retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights and has been denied meaningful access to the courts.
Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner's First Amendment rights to speech or to petition the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989). To establish a prima facie case, plaintiff must allege and show that defendants acted to retaliate for his exercise of a protected activity, and defendants' actions did not serve a legitimate penological purpose. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). A plaintiff asserting a retaliation claim must demonstrate a "but-for" causal nexus between the alleged retaliation and plaintiff's protected activity ( i.e., filing a legal action). McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1979); see Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). The prisoner must submit evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish a link between the exercise of constitutional rights and the allegedly retaliatory action. Pratt, 65 F.3d at 806. Timing of the events surrounding the alleged retaliation may constitute circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent. See Soranno's Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1989).
Here, plaintiff claims that Peterman retaliated against him "for various pejoritives [sic] that [plaintiff] had previously exchanged with Peterman," by destroying his legal files. Plaintiff does not allege retaliation for his exercise of a constitutionally protected activity. Plaintiff's retaliation claim is dismissed.
With respect to plaintiff's claims that he has been denied access to the courts, prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), limited in part on other grounds by Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354; Ching v. Lewis, 895 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1990). To establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, a prisoner must establish that he or she has suffered an actual injury, a jurisdictional requirement that flows from the standing doctrine and may not be waived. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349; Madrid, 190 F.3d at 996. An "actual injury" is "actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348 (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that "[f]ailure to show that a `non-frivolous legal claim ha[s] been frustrated' is fatal" to a claim for denial of access to legal materials) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 n. 4); Madrid, 190 F.3d at 996. Delays in providing legal materials or assistance that result in actual injury are "not of constitutional significance" if "they are the product of prison regulations reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 362. The right of access to the courts is limited to non-frivolous direct criminal appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, and § 1983 actions. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 n. 3 354-55; Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that "a prisoner has no constitutional right of access to the courts to litigate an unrelated civil claim."); Madrid, 190 F.3d at 995. With his claims that defendants either directly destroyed his legal files or denied grievances regarding this incident, preventing plaintiff from submitting three specific court filings, plaintiff states an access to courts claim against all defendants.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket #1) without having to prepay the full filing fee is GRANTED; plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee shall still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996. The movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. This order granting in forma pauperis status shall not extend to the issuance of subpoenas at government expense.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996, the Nevada Department of Corrections shall pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits to the account of Andrew L. Meeks, II, Inmate No. 52872 (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the attention of Albert G. Peralta, Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Prisons, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, even if this action is dismissed, or is otherwise unsuccessful, the full filing fee shall still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall FILE the complaint (docket #1-1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's retaliation claim is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's access to courts claims MAY PROCEED against all defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
1. 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 complaint, on the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, to the attention of Pamela Sharp.
2. The Attorney General's Office shall advise the Court within twenty-one (21) days of the date of entry of this order whether it can accept service of process for the named defendants. As to any of the named defendants for which the Attorney General's Office cannot accept service, the Office shall file, under seal, the last known address(es) of those defendant(s).
3. If service cannot be accepted for any of the named defendant(s), plaintiff shall file a motion identifying the unserved defendant(s), requesting issuance of a summons, and specifying a full name and address for said defendant(s). Plaintiff is reminded that, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, service must be accomplished within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date the complaint was filed.
4. If the Attorney General accepts service of process for any named defendant(s), such defendant(s) 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.
5. 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 made 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 a magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk, and any paper which fails to include a certificate showing proper service.
DATED this 16th day of November, 2010. NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROCEED WITH MEDIATION
___________________________ Name ___________________________ Prison Number ___________________________ 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 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 ____________________, 20 _____.
_________________________________________________ Signature _________________________________________________ Name of person who prepared or helped prepare this documentCIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 A. JURISDICTION
ANDREW L. MEEKS, II ELY STATE PRISON, ELY NEVADA NEVADA STATE PRISON, CARSON CITY, NEVADA October 6, 2008 October 6, 2008 November 12, 2008- December 9, 2008 March 4, 2009 Make a copy of this page to provide the below information if you are naming more that five (5) defendants E. PETERMAN Sr. Correctional Officer, N.S.P. Defendant was designated Property Officer of Nevada State Prison (heremafter N.S.P. NANCY FLORES Unit Caseworker, N.S.P. Defendant Responds to informal grievances In her unit at N.S.P. JAMES BACCA Asscociate Wardon, N.S.P. Defendant coordinates all grievances in N.S.P. BILL DONAT Wardon, E.S.P. Defendant Responds to all formal grievances at N.S.P. LORI BAGWELL Deputy Director, N.D. O.C. The defendant was a grievance Respondant for the Nevada Department of Corrections (hereinafter the NDOC.) 28 U.S.C. § 1343 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1) This complaint alleges that the civil rights of Plaintiff, , (print Plaintiff's name) who presently resides at , were (mailing address or place of confinement) 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) , and . 2) Defendant resides at _____________________________________________, (full name of first defendant) (address of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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.Comes Now this civil Rights action for this Honorable court who has origonal jurisdiction pursuant to the above Related Statutes, dates, and location and hereby manifests claim: that State (Nevada) Prison staff are liable for the deprivation of the inmate plaintiffs' Right to petition the government for the Redress of grievance where they lost, distroyed, or defrauded him of oppertunities to have Replaced, a copy of his personal legal work/case file. Plaintiff seeks money damages for injuries Resulting from said deprivation.
C. CAUSE OF ACTION COUNT I
The following civil right has been violated: The Right to Petition the Government for the Redress of grievance. ( First Amendment. U.S. Constitution.)Supporting Facts: [Include all facts 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].The Defendant E. Peterman acted with deliberate indifference to the Rights of Plaintiff ANDREW L. MEEKS, II, by: disregarding N.D.O.C. Directives (A.R. 711) and thus causing the distruction/loss of Andrew's Personal legal/case file which was detramental for Andrew to exersize his Right to have access to the courts. Specificly, PETERMAN Refused or failed to follow the Rules of A.R. 711 by: not controling/securing and inventorying all of Andrew's personal property, when transfering it from a cell/unit that was previously assigned to Andrew. PETERMAN distroyed/lost Andrew's legal/case file during the transfer. PETERMAN knew or should have known that: the distruction/loss of Andrew's file would be detramental to Andrew's Right to have acess to the courts. And because of PETERMAN'S actions, Andrew was "hendered in filing 3 non-frovolous claims:
1) A Petition for a Rehearing in US Court of Appeals (9th Cir) in case No. 08-15447;
2) A Petition for a writ of Certioari in the U.S. Supreme Court for a Review of an adverse decision In an appeal (U.S. Court of Appeals, case No. 08-15447); and,
3) A Petition in State/Federal District Court to show Actual Innocence".
The actual injury caused by E. PETERMAN'S actions is that Andrew may never again have an opperfunity to regain his freedom and to clear his name from what he believes to be a wrongfull conviction for which he is serving muitipul life sentences.
Accordingly the Plaintiff ANDREW L. MEEKS, II, seeks $400,000 in compensatory damages from the Defendant for the Defendants actions related herein Count I.
COUNT II
The following civil right has been violated: The Right to Petition the government for the Redress of grievance ( First Amendment. U.S. Constitution).Supporting Facts: [Include all facts 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].
The Defendant E. PETERMAN acted with the evil intent to oppress ANDREW L. MEEK'S, II, by: purposfully distroying/losing Andrerew's personal legal/case file as a means of retaliation against Andrew for various pejoritives that Andrew had previously exchanged with PETERMAN, which was detramental for Andrew to exersize his right to have access to the courts.
Spicificly, after an exchange of insult had taken place between PETERMAN and Andrew, PETERMAN escorted Andrew to "a segregation unit" (the hole). On the way there, Andrew remarked that he "lired to live in the hole". And afterwords, PETERMAN took it upon himself to be the sole individual to control Andrew's personal property. PETERMAN then purposfully distroyed/lost Andrew's personal legal/case file since taking Andrew to "the hole" was not punishment to Andrew for insulting PETERMAN, who wanted Revenge and retaliation. PETERMAN knew or should have known that: the distruction/loss of Andrew's file would be detramental to Andrew's right to have access to the courts. And because of PETERMAN'S retaliation Andrew was hendered in filing 3 non-frivolous claims:
1) A Petition for a Rehearing in U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Cir) in case No. 08-15447;
2) A Petition for a Writ of Certioari in the U.S. Supreme Court for a Review of an adverse decision in an appeal (U.S. Court of Appeal case No. 08-15447); and,
3) A Petition in State/Federal District Court to show "Actual Innocence".
The actual injury caused by E. PETERMAN'S Retaliation is that Andrew may never again have an oppertunity to Regain his freedom and to clear his name from what he believes to be a wrongful conviction for which he is serving multipul life sentences.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff ANDREW L. MEEKS, II, seeks $ 400,000 in compensatory damages from the Defendant E. PETERMAN; and an additional $ 200,000 in punitive damages for the Defendants evil intent when commiting said acts Related herein Count II.
COUNT III
The following civil right has been violated: The Right to Petition the government for the Redress of grievance ( First Amendment, U.S. Constitution)Supporting Facts: [Include all facts 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].
The Defendants NANCY FLORES, JAMES BACCA, and BILL DONAT, (one and all) acted with the evil intent to oppress Plaintiff ANDREW L. MEEKS, II, by: Abusing their power with the purpose defrauding him out of his Rightful oppertunity to have the N.D.O.C. "Return", "Replace", or "Compensate him for" their staffs' distroying or losing his personal legal/case file, which the Defendants one and all knew or should have known would be detramental to Andrew's ability to exersize his Right to have access to the courts.
Spicificly, when the defendants one and all Responded to and/or answered Andrew's grievances conserning their subodinates distroying/losing his file, they purposfully igknored omitted and mis-Represented documentary and direct evidence which showed that Andrew had continued possession of such a file prior to their subordinat's unjust actions, and thusly they wrongfully concluded that Andrew did not have such file in his cell when he claimed that N.D.O.C. staff had distoryed/lost said file. The defendants, one and all, knew that by igknoring, omitting, and misrepresenting. evidence that was favorable to Andrew they would doom his chances to recover his file (or be duly compensated for the unjust distruction loss of it.). And because of the defendants one and all oppressing him, Andrew was hendered in filing 3 non-frivolous claims:
1) A petition for a rehearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Cir) in Case no. 08-15447;
2) A petition for a writ of Certioari in the U.S. Supreme Court for a Review of an adverse decision in appeal (U.S. Court of Appeal Case no. 08-15447); and,
3) A petition in state/federal District Court to show Actual Innocence.The actual injury caused by the Defendants NANCY FLORES, JAMES BACCA and BILL DONAT's oppression is that Andrew may never again have an oppertunity to regain his freedom and to clear his name from what he believes to be a wrongful conviction for which he is serving multipul life sentences. Accordingly, the Plaintiff ANDREW L. MEEKS, II, seeks $ 600,000 jointly in compensatory damages from the defendants, one and all; and an additional $ 300,000 in punitive damages for the defendant's evil intent when committing said acts related herein Count III.
C. CAUSE OF ACTION COUNT I
The following civil right has been violated: The Right to Petition the Government for Redress of grievance ( First Amendment, U.S. Constitution).Supporting Facts: [Include all facts 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].The Defendant LORI BAGWELL acted with the evil intent to oppress Plaintiff ANDREW L. MEEKS, II, by: Abusing her power with the purpose of defrauding him out of his Rightful oppertunity to have the N.D.O.C. Return, replace, or compensate him for "their staffs' distroying or losing his personal legal/case file, which she knew or should have known would be detramental to Andrew's ability to exersize his right to have access to the courts. Spicificly, BAGWELL told a bold faced lie when she responded in answer to Andrew's grievance conserning her subordinates distroying/losing his file, BAGWELL "invented the untruth" that Andrew had signed an inventory recipt (the bottom of an [N] D.O.C. form 1773) and by that "invented untruth", BAGWELL "wrongfully concluded" that Andrew had waved his rights to hold the N.D.O.C. responsable for the loss of his legal/case file. BAGWELL knew that by felling such a boldfaced lie she would doom Andrew's chances to recover his file (or be duly compensated for the unjust distruction/loss of it). And because of the defendant's oppressing him, Andrew was hendered in filing 3 non-frivolous claims:
1) A petition for a rehearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) in case no. 08-15447;
2) A petition for a writ of certioari in the U.S. Supreme Court for a Review of an adverse decision in appeal (U.S. Court of Appeals case no. 08-15447); and,
3) A petition in State/Federal District Court to show Actual Innocence.
The actual injury caused by the Defendant LORI BAGWELL's Oppression is that Andrew may never again have an oppertunity to regain his freedom and to clear his name from what he believes to be a wrongful conviction for which he is serving multipul life sentences.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff ANDREW L. MEEKS, II, seeks $ 200,000 in compensatory damages from the Defendant LORI BAGWELL; and an additional $ 100,000 in punitve damages for the defendant's evil intent when commiting said acts related herein count IV.
D. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
same or similar facts The Nevada Department of Corrections Justice Court Carson City, NV Plaintiff won a Judgement of $40. Plaintiff brought small claim to recovor for lost copywork which was lost by staff in this same incident December 31, 2009 dismissed because it was determined to be frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A See below 8/23/8 (NSP); 10/21/9 (ESP Grievance # 2006-28-00671 — denied on all levles; Grievance # 2006-28-85238 — denied on all levles. 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 have 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:One Million and six-hundred thousand dollars ($ 1,600,000) in compensatory damages for the loss of my ability and oppertunities to try to gain my freedom from a sentence of multipul life terms and clear my name from wrongful convictions; and an additional four-hundred thousand dollars ($ 400,000) in punitive damages for the evil intent to oppress me that the defendants manifest.
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.N/A ___________________ July 26, 2010
(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)
N/A _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________