From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

NEFF v. McDANIEL

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Sep 27, 2010
3:09-cv-00271-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 27, 2010)

Opinion

3:09-cv-00271-HDM-VPC.

September 27, 2010


ORDER


The court has considered the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (#41) filed on August 27, 2010, in which the magistrate judge recommends that this court enter a screening order dismissing without prejudice some of the claims asserted by plaintiff in his first amended complaint (#37). No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed and the time for doing so has expired. The court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record and has made a review and determination in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law, and good cause appearing, the court hereby

ADOPTS AND ACCEPTS in part and rejects in part the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (#41).

The court adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's Count I retaliation claim against defendants Neagle, Bryant, and McDaniel, Count II due process claim against defendants Brooks, Endel, and McDaniel, and Count II conditions of confinement claim against defendant Bryant be allowed to proceed. The court further adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's Count I right to access the courts claim against defendant McDaniel and his Count II due process claim against defendant Bryant be dismissed without prejudice. As to plaintiff's Count II due process claim against defendant McDaniel, the court concludes this claim should not be dismissed at this stage of the proceeding.

Accordingly, it is ordered that:

1. The clerk shall file the plaintiff's first amended complaint.

2. The complaint shall proceed on plaintiff's Count I retaliation against defendants Neagle, Bryant, and McDaniel, Count II due process claim against defendants Brooks, Endel, and McDaniel, Count II conditions of confinement claim against defendant Bryant, and Count II due process claim against defendant McDaniel.

3. The plaintiff's Count I claim against defendant McDaniel alleging violation of his right to access the courts and his Count II claim against defendant Bryant alleging violation of his right to due process are hereby dismissed without prejudice.

4. The clerk shall electronically serve a copy of this order, along with a copy of plaintiff's first amended complaint, on the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, attention Pamela Sharp. The Attorney General shall file an answer or other response to the first amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this order.

5. If the Attorney General does not accept service of process for any named defendant(s), then plaintiff must file a motion identifying the unserved defendant(s), requesting issuance of summons for the unserved defendant(s), and specifying the full name(s) and address(es) of the unserved defendant(s).

6. Plaintiff's motion for summons on additional defendants (#38) is denied without prejudice as moot with leave to renew the motion should the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada not accept service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This 27th day of September, 2010.

FIRST AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 JURY DEMAND A. JURISDICTION

John Neff P.O. Box 1989, Ely, NV. 89301 Ely State Prison/Ely 4-3-07 through to 1-22-09 Make a copy of this page to provide the below information if you are naming more than five (5) defendants Arthur Neagle P.O. Box 1989, Ely, NV. 89301 Esp Lieutenant Employee, State of Nevada Ronald Bryant P.O. Box 1989, Ely, NV. 89301 ESP Sergeant Employee, State of Nevada Eldon K. McDaniel P.O. Box 1989, Ely, NV. 89301 ESP Warden Employee, state of Nevada M. Oxborough P.O. Box 1989, Ely, NV. 89301 ESP caseworker/CCS Employee, state of Nevada Make a copy of this page to provide the below information if you are naming more than five (5) defendants Adam Endel (At time of incident) P.O. Box 1989, Ely, NV. 89301 AWP at ESP at time Employee, State of Nevada Debra Brooks P.O. Box 1989, Ely, NV. 89301 AWO at ESP/Associate Warden Employee, state of Nevada N/A N/A N/A 28 U.S.C. § 1343 42 U.S.C. § 1983As Cited above

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) 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: ______________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 2) Defendant __________________ resides at , (full name of first defendant) (address if first defendant) and was employed as ____________________. This defendant is sued in his/her (defendant's postition 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.

This series of misadventures begins with the Fact that plaintiff was early on misidentified as a security Threat Group Member (STG) known as the Aryan Warriors. In Fact, he is a member of a protected religious group known as Asatru (or Odinism) which does not involve violence at anytime. Any violence-related incidents plaintiff has been involved in are either unsubstantiated or part of his life as a maximum security inmate. It has nothing to do with gangs or religion. Odinism is a recognized and First Amendment protected religion. See, exhibit A-attached. The series of calamities begins on March 21, 2007, when plaintiff's cellmate Michael Beavers said he had Hepatitis and plaintiff refused to be celled with him because Odinism prohibits close contact with illness. See, exhibit A-attached. His cellmate told him be had

Hepatitis, On April 3, 2007, plaintiff, having been charged with "disobeying a direct order" (For not returning to the cell with Michael Beavers) a "G-1" violation, and with "disruptive demonstration or practice", a "MS-28" violation, appeared before Lieutenant Neagle for a disciplinary hearing about the charges, as the disciplinary bearing got readied to take place, plaintiff informed Neagle that as a religious tenet of Odinism, he is not allowed to have close contact with people who have illness or disease. See, exhibit A-attached. Never the less, ct. Neagle punished plaintiff with 15 days of disciplinary detention which was appealed via grievance to the 2nd level, completed on July 25, 2007. Plaintiff's prison complaint occurred prior to March 21, 2007, however, the statute of limitations is tolled during administrative remedies, See, Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 943 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff was punished for his religious belief and practice.

As a part of the above incident, Warden McDaniel enacted a rule without enabling legislation known as "I.P. S. 13" (Now Operational Procedure-"OP"-S. 13). It adds the following sanctions below which are not authorized by the state Code of Penal Discipline (NRS 209.246) (Administrative Regulation-AR-707, legislatively enacted regulations.):

These are the following sanctions imposed;

• All personal phone calls forfeited for 180 days.
• All electrical appliances forfeited for 180 days.
• All visits forfeited for 1 year.
• Loss of canteen for 180 days.
• Eliminated participation from the pockage program for 2 years.

This unauthorized rule applies to inmates who refuse to cell with their assigned cellmate. Notice is given that the Code of Penal Discipline (AR 707) prohibits the loss of visiting privileges unless it involves on incident related to visiting events, and all these sanctions exceed the allowed sanctions for the rule violations of "G-1" and "MS-28" under the State Code of Penal Discipline. Plaintiff seeks both damages, punitive award individual capacity, and permanent injunctive relief, official capacity, and declaratory judgement as to this unauthorized "I.P. S. 13" against Defendant Eldon K. McDaniel.

After serving the 15 days of disciplinary detention for the "G-1" and "MS-28" violations, plaintiff sought his return to general population. Instead, he was told he was now on "Administrative Segregation" (Ad Seg). His disciplinary detention expired on May 15, 2007. Commencing May 16, 2007, plaintiff continuously sent written inquiries to the caseworker, Defendant Oxborough, and Associate Warden of Programs Adam Endel asking when be can return to general population (GP). There was no specific response until May 24, 2007, when Oxborough stated:

"you came to the hole to do disciplinary detention sanction. For a safety and security issue the Administration has made the decision to leave you in MLU (maximum lockdown unit)"

All during this time, Defendant Ronald Bryant had spoken to plaintiff and continued the ESP allegation that plaintiff was a member of the Aryan Warriors, Each time, plaintiff explained that odinism is a religion — not part of a gang — and is a protected First Amendment activity (exhibit A). Bryant replied "it's all the same to me." It was clear that a conflict existed between Bryant and plaintiff.

Not knowing what Oxborough's above response of safety and security issue meant, plaintiff sent an inquiry to Associate Warden Adam Endel on May 27, 2007, for an explanation, who replied:

"You will remain on Ad Seg status because of STG activity."

There were no rule infractions for STG activity. On June 11, 2007, plaintiff formally grieved the "I.P. S. 13" unauthorized sanction through the 2nd level without result. From May 15, 2007, when the 15 days of disciplinary detention had ended and Ad Seg began, absolutely no compliance with the regulations governing administrative segregation (AR 507) was made. The regulations contain mandatory predicates limiting official discretion of a porticularized criteria, dictating specific outcome and thus rise to Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests.

No Formal classification process occurred to place plaintiff in Ad Seg, to wit:

AR 507 Administrative Segregotion
Procedures:
1.3 Inmates will be retained in administrative segregation only after Completion of Formal classification procedures, (emphasis added)

Since Adam Endel claimed the status was because of "STG activities" (which didn't exist) Ad Seg was being used as punishment.

1.4 Administrative segregation is not to be used For the purpose of punishment, (emphasis added)

Plaintiff was simply abandoned in a lock-up cell without any process.

507.02 Placement in Administrative Segregation
1.3 Inmates placed in Administrative Segregation will recleve on initial Administrative Segregation hearing within 3 working days . . . (emphasis added)
1.4 Inmates will relieve at least Forty-eight (48) hours notice prior to conducting on initial Administrative Segregation hearing. (emphasis added)
1.5 The classification committee for the initial Administrative Segregation hearing, or any subsequent regular reclassification of an Administrative segregation inmate will consist of at least 3 employees. (emphasis added)
1.5.2 The inmate will be present at all times during the classification meeting except For decision deliberations, discussion of information From anonymous sources, or if they become disruptive. (emphasis added)

None of these procedures occurred, despite the mandatory language contained in them, In Fact, From May 15, 2007, the end of the 15 day sanction, until October 29, 2007, no classification hearing occurred. That is 167 days From the start of Ad Seg before the required hearing within "3 days". Plaintiff pointed this out to defendants Endel, Brooks, and McDaniel without result.

Officer Bryant continued to harass plaintiff about STG allegations, maintaining these, despite plaintiff's talk about his religion Odinism, stating it was "just another part of gang activities." And on November 19, 2007, Bryant played a role in plaintiff's move to another Ad Seg cell and took all of plaintiff's property to his office (even toothbrush and toilet paper) for two (2) Full days as retaliation after plaintiff denied any involvement in gang activities and maintained his actions were part of his religious beliefs.

Ely State Prison Operational Procedure 420 (OP) mandates two (2) staff members For conducting a search, along with a panolopy of other mandatory requirements ("shall"). None of which was complied with.

During this property seizure, Bryant took plaintiff's address book claiming it contained the names and numbers of STG members, In Fact, these were only alleged as being such and they were actually witnesses plaintiff intended For legal court proceeding (which was disclosed), along with the names of attorneys and Family members and Friends. Bryant used this as a predicate for a rule violation gaining plaintiff 60 days disciplinary segregation on January 12, 2008, For "contraband", the address book. Notice is given that there is no rule that prohibits having an address book or the having of Fellow prisoners' names and numbers. The address book contained pertinent legal information which was made clear and Fully exhausted through grievances. This amounts to more retaliation by Bryant and other named defendants For plaintiff's religious status which was still being called "gang activities". See, exhibit A.

Continuing on Ad seg after the 60 day punishment for an address book that wasn't "contraband" and was needed for court purposes, the AR 507 also dictates:

507.02 Placement in Administrative Segregation
1.5.9 The classification committee shall review inmates in administrative segregation every seven days for the first two months and every 30 days thereafter. (emphasis added)

As previously stated, 167 days elapsed with absolutely no compliance to any of these regulations.

As to Defendant McDaniel, he has also instituted a policy of not allowing low checks to come to the housing units, and employing the use of a "paging system" hold as unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit which is why this current litigation has been improvidently protracted.

507.04 Administrative Segregation Operations
1.12 Law clerks will be allowed to provide administrative segregation inmates with legal materials and books. (emphasis added)

Additionally, a mental health doctor is required to complete a "meaningful evaluation" after 30 days to Ad Seg inmates:

1.17 A qualified clinical psychologist or psychiatrist will interview in person and complete a meaningful evaluation on the status of each person classified to administrative segregation within 30 days of assignment to that unit.
(AND)
1.17.2 The evaluation will be completed for every inmate every 90 days. (emphasis added)

None of these evaluations occurred.

On December 27, 2007, without plaintiff appearing for a hearing, a "Classification Results Notice" was issued stating plaintiff was continued on Ad Seg for safety and security reasons, no explanation was provided.

Again, after nearly a year, on November 13, 2008, another "notice" was issued stating the same as the one before with no proper explanation and plaintiff wasn't brought for a hearing.

On January 23, 2009, plaintiff's Ad Seg status ended but only because he was implicated in another unsubstantiated matter wherein Bryant participated claiming he (Bryant) found written correspondence allegedly written by plaintiff, not found on plaintiff or in his cell, that allegedly told another inmate to harm another. Yet, this isn't true and no incident occurred. Plaintiff was never allowed to see the mysterious correspondence "he" wrote whereas Bryant admitted that he conducted the investigation as well as the hand writing analysis. AR 707 requires that an inmate be provided evidence of a rule violation and certain process be observed. It wasn't and this matter is raised in ancillary litigation. (3:09-cv-672-RCS-VPC)

Each incident described herein will be supported by irrefictable evidence.

Note! Plaintiff spent a total of 557 days in Ad Seg, not courting the 15 day and 60 day disciplinary time, and such status constitutes an atypical and significant hardship.

C. CAUSE OF ACTION COUNT I

The following civil right has been violated: ________________________________ ____________________First Amendment U.S.C.A.__________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

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].
As to Defendant Neagle! punishment for plaintiff's religious tenet. As to Defendant Ronald Bryant! 1st Amendment retaliations over plaintiff's religious status as described in Nature of the Case and — Defendant Bryant confiscated plaintiff's address book and made unsubstantiated claims as for the legal information it contained as a trick to again retaliate. The loss of the address book affected plaintiff's court matters and litigation, because the names of witnesses and lawyers were contained for multiple legal proceedings. Bryant took all plaintiff's property at that time leaving plaintiff with nothing despite a list of required items to be left to inmates per O.P. 420 which includes legal materials. A 1st Amendment continuing violation by Defendant McDaniel for upholding Bryant's actions in reference to the address book and for dis-allowing law clerks to come to housing units and with the use of unconstitutional "paging system" as ineffective access. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

COUNT II

The following civil right has been violated: ________________________________ _______________Fourteenth Amendment U.S.C.A.__________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

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].
As to Defendant McDaniel: the illegal "I.P. S. 13" used to punish plaintiff. such "I.P." has no enabling legislation and prison rule matters are governed by NRS 209.246, AR 707. McDaniel cannot create his own regulations on discipline, individual and official capacities. Due process and liberty interest constitutional violations over Ad Seg punishment of 557 days contrary to AR 507 regulation rules as to Defendants Endel, Oxborough, Brooks, and McDaniel. Defendant Bryant seized all plaintiff's property as retaliation over plaintiff's religious tenets and failed to comply with the mandates of O.P. 420 leaving plaintiff with no clothing for warmth, no hygiene items, no soap, no shampoo, and no legal records. A list of items that must be left to inmates is shown on O.P. 420, but wasn't adhered to. The 557 days in Ad Seg constituted an atypical and significant hardship violating a secured set of liberties. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

COUNT III

The following civil rights has been violated: _______________________________ _____________________________________N/A_______________ _________________________________________________________________

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].

_________________N/A_________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

D. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

same or similar facts X See, 3:09-cv-672-RCS-VPC dismissed because it was determined to be frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted? X Robert Bannister/Soe Brackbill/Gregory Martin U.S. District Court/3:09-cv-117-LRH-UPC X Medical Indifference January 20, 2009 June 2009 N/A N/A All claims are fully exhausted with a long list of grievances and these will be filed in this litigation.

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) Damages by jury per each defendant, individually, joint and severly 2) Punitive award by jury. 3) Injunctive relief as to "IP S. 13", official capacity, Defendant McDaniel 4) The costs of this action and all legal fees and expenses. 5) Declaratory judgement 6) Jury demand, Rule 38(b)

_______________________________________________________________

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.May 20, 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________

Exhibit A

Excerpts from "Living Asatrú" (Odinism) from printed materials from: World Tree Publications, P.O. Box 961, Payson, AZ. 85547:

What is Asatrú?

Asatrú (sometimes called Odinism) is the organic/prima/religion of the indigenous Northern European peoples. Asatrú, in Old Norse, means "Faith in the Gods". Old Norse is the liturgical tongue of the religion of Asatrú. The religion is recognized by the courts and government as an authentic religion and has obtained I.R.S. tax exemption under Title 501-c.

Values of Asatrú

Strength: To meet life's challenges.

Courage: To master all fears.

Joy: Eliminate guilt, shame and fear, to initiate ambition, competence, pleasures.

Honor: The good name never dies of one who has done well. Being recognized by everyone is being in honor.

Freedom: Liberation within society's controls without abridging them. Spiritual Freedom = real Freedom.

Realism: Be within natural things and nature.

Vigor: Be physically and mentally robust. Avoid Sickness and those who are ill. (emphasis added)

Ancestry: What has passed down generation to generation is to be carried forth.


Summaries of

NEFF v. McDANIEL

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Sep 27, 2010
3:09-cv-00271-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 27, 2010)
Case details for

NEFF v. McDANIEL

Case Details

Full title:JOHN NEFF, Plaintiff, v. ELDON K. McDANIEL, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Sep 27, 2010

Citations

3:09-cv-00271-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 27, 2010)