Harden v. Monninghoff et al

Filing 184

ORDER denying 181 Motion.; denying 182 Motion for New Trial.; denying 183 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 2/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

HAROLD HARDEN,

5
6
7
8

Case No. 2:14-cv-00377-APG-PAL
Plaintiff,

v.
CHRISTINE MONINGOFF and RAFAEL
AGUILERA, 1

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
(ECF Nos. 181, 182, 183)

Defendants.

9
10
11

Plaintiff Harold Harden, a prisoner, filed this lawsuit alleging that in April 2012,

12

defendant Christine Moninghoff moved Harden to the mental health segregation unit at High

13

Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) without prior notice and without his consent. ECF No. 17 at 4. He

14

alleges that once there he was forced to take psychiatric drugs that resulted in an allergic reaction.

15

Id. He also alleges that defendant Rafael Aguilera transported him to the mental health

16

segregation unit against his will and without any notice or opportunity to be heard. Id.

17

I previously granted summary judgment in the defendants’ favor. ECF No. 167. I then

18

denied Harden’s motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 175. I also denied Harden’s objection to

19

my ruling denying reconsideration because I lacked jurisdiction to consider the objection once

20

Harden filed a notice of appeal. ECF No. 180.

21

Harden next filed a motion for relief from the judgment and motion for a new trial. ECF

22

Nos. 181, 182. I deny those motions for the same reason I denied Harden’s last motion. I no

23

longer have jurisdiction over this case.

24
25

Finally, Harden filed a motion to withdraw ECF Nos. 181 and 182 and to resubmit them
as a single motion for relief from the judgment. ECF No. 183. I deny that motion as unnecessary.

26
27
28

1

Incorrectly identified in the complaint as Dr. Monninghoff and S/O Agular.

1

Although Harden suspects the Nevada Department of Corrections filed the same document twice

2

as some form of retaliation, in fact the document was filed twice by the clerk of court to reflect

3

the fact that Harden styled his filing as two motions: (1) a motion for relief from judgment and (2)

4

a motion for a new trial. See ECF Nos. 181, 182. The duplicate filing was not done to Harden’s

5

prejudice and played no role in my decision to deny ECF Nos. 181 and 182.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Harold Harden’s motion for relief from
judgment (ECF No. 181) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Harold Harden’s motion for new trial (ECF
No. 182) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Harold Harden’s motion to withdraw ECF

11

Nos. 181 and 182 and resubmit as a motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 183) is DENIED

12

as unnecessary.

13

DATED this 1st day of February, 2017.

14
15
16

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2