Does v. Laxalt et al
Filing
156
ORDER denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 145 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 149 ) is GRANTED in part. The injunction issued in ECF No. 148 is hereby VACATED. A clarified injunction is issued below. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are permanently enjoined from enforcing any retroactive imposition of residency and movement restrictions not specifically set forth in NRS 213.1243 before Oct ober 1, 2007 to any plaintiffs who meet the following conditions:1.The plaintiff's last relevant criminal offense occurred before October 1,2007.2.A "relevant" criminal offense is any offense that would trigger the movement and r esidency restrictions of SB 471.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference is set in this case for November 9, 2021 at 11:45 AM by videoconference. The instruction for videoconference appearance to be issued. The status conference will, in part, address the issue of damages. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/30/2021. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - BEL)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
8
ORDER
Plaintiff(s),
9
10
Case No. 2:15-cv-01638-RFB-DJA
DOES 1-35, and UNKNOWN NAMED
DOES 1-1000,
v.
14
THE STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. Aaron Ford,
Attorney General of the State of Nevada;
GEORGE TOGLIATTI, Director of the Nevada
Department of Public Safety;
NATALIE WOOD, Chief Parole and Probation
Division of the Nevada Department of Public
Safety; CHRISTOPHER DERICO; Chair of the
Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners; et al.,
15
Defendant(s).
11
12
13
16
17
I.
18
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 145) and
19
INTRODUCTION
Defendants’ Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 149).
20
21
22
II.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
23
Plaintiffs filed their first Complaint on August 25, 2015. ECF No. 1. The complaint
24
challenges the retroactive application of movement and residency restrictions to Plaintiffs, who
25
are all registered sex offenders on several constitutional grounds, including the Ex Post Facto
26
27
28
Clause. On January 21, 2016, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Defendants Lombardo,
Moers, and Perez. ECF Nos. 33, 34. On September 9, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to
1
1
file an amended complaint and dismissed a pending motion to dismiss without prejudice. ECF No.
2
42. Plaintiff filed the first amended Complaint on October 11, 2016. ECF No. 45. Defendants
3
4
5
6
Conmany, Laxalt, Wood, and Wright filed an Answer on October 25, 2016. ECF No. 32. On April
23, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 68. Defendants
responded on May 14, 2018. ECF No. 70. Plaintiffs replied on May 28, 2018. ECF No. 72.
7
On January 17, 2019, the Court denied the motions to dismiss/summary judgment and
8
granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to add the State Board of Parole Commissioners.
9
10
11
ECF No. 75. The Court also reopened discovery for 120 days. Plaintiff filed the operative second
amended complaint on January 28, 2019. ECF No. 76. Defendants answered the amended
12
complaint on March 5, 2019. ECF No. 94. A settlement conference occurred on June 25, 2019. A
13
settlement was not reached. ECF No. 108. Plaintiffs Does 1-35 filed their second motion for
14
summary judgment on September 16, 2019. ECF No. 112. A response and reply were filed. ECF
15
16
17
Nos. 116, 118. On March 9, 2020, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. ECF No. 127. On
September 29, 2020, the Court issued a written order on the motion. ECF No. 148. Defendants
18
filed a Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgement or in the alternative Rule 60 Motion for
19
Reconsideration. ECF No. 149.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
On September 14, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 145.
A response and reply were filed. ECF Nos. 150, 152.
This written order follows.
III.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
a. Undisputed Facts
27
28
2
1
2
The Court incorporates by reference the undisputed facts in the Order granting Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 148).
3
4
5
6
b. Disputed Facts
The Court finds there to be no disputed facts.
IV.
7
8
9
10
11
LEGAL STANDARD
a. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322(1986). When considering
13
the propriety of summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light
14
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.
15
16
17
2014). If the movant has carried its burden, the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show
that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts …. Where the record taken as a whole
18
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for
19
trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
20
omitted).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
It is improper for the Court to resolve genuine factual disputes or make credibility
determinations at the summary judgment stage. Zetwick v. Cty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 441 (9th
Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).
b. Rule 59 Motion to Alter Judgment
Rule 59(e) allows for a motion to alter or amend a judgment within twenty-eight days after
the entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Since specific grounds for a motion to amend
3
1
or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or
2
denying the motion.” McDowell v. Caleron, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1999). But the
3
4
5
relief provided for is extraordinary and “should be used sparingly.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron,
634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255). The “four basic grounds
6
upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted [are]: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct
7
manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to
8
present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to
9
10
11
prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in
controlling law.” Id.
c. Rule 60(b) Motion to Reconsider
12
13
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final
14
judgment only in the following circumstances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
15
16
17
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called
18
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is
19
void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
20
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any
21
22
23
24
25
other reason that justifies relief. See Mackey v. Hoffman, 682 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 2012).
V.
DISCUSSION
a. Motion for Summary Judgment
26
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because
27
all Defendants named in their individual capacities are entitled to the protections of qualified
28
4
1
immunity. For the reasons stated in the Court’s previous order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
2
Judgement and which are incorporated here by reference, the Defendants’ motion is denied.
3
4
5
Qualified immunity is not available for prospective injunctive relief. See Hydrick v. Hunter, 669
F.3d 937, 939–40 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Qualified immunity is only an immunity from a suit for money
6
damages, and does not provide immunity from a suit seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.”).
7
While the Nevada Supreme Court has not explicitly held the same for discretionary immunity, the
8
Ninth Circuit has held that discretionary function immunity does not apply to violations of the
9
10
11
Constitution or the Federal Tort Claims Act, from which Nevada’s discretionary act immunity
statute is derived. See Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that even
12
though generally policies are subject to discretionary act immunity, “governmental conduct cannot
13
be discretionary if it violates a legal mandate”); Martinez v. Maruszczack, 168 P.3d 720, 727 (Nev.
14
2007).
15
16
17
b. Rule 59 Motion to Alter Judgment/Rule 60 Motion to Reconsider
Defendants ask this Court to modify the injunction issued in its Order (ECF No. 148). The
18
scope of injunctive relief is properly dictated by the extent of the violation established. Califano
19
v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979). An overbroad injunction is an abuse of discretion. E. & J.
20
Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1297–98 (9th Cir. 1992). An injunction is
21
22
23
overbroad where it is not tailored to eliminate only the specific harm alleged, goes beyond what
would be required to remedy the harm, or enjoins conduct that has not been found to violate law.
24
See Id.; see also Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi, 673 F.3d 1105, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012);
25
Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass'n, 791 F.3d 967, 1000 (9th Cir. 2015); McCormack v.
26
Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir. 2012). However, an injunction should not be so narrow
27
28
as to invite easy evasion. Skydive Arizona, Inc., 673 F.3d at 1116.
5
1
Under the standards enunciated above, the Court finds that the injunction would benefit
2
from clarification in order to tailor it to the specific harm demonstrated by the Plaintiffs in this
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
case. It was not the intent of the Court to address in its injunctive order any release conditions that
were not the subject of and disputed in this litigation. Accordingly, the Court will clarify the
injunction in its order below.
VI.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 145) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment (ECF No. 149) is GRANTED in part. The injunction issued in ECF No. 148 is hereby
VACATED. A clarified injunction is issued below.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are permanently enjoined from enforcing
any retroactive imposition of residency and movement restrictions not specifically set forth in NRS
213.1243 before October 1, 2007 to any plaintiffs who meet the following conditions:
1. The plaintiff’s last relevant criminal offense occurred before October 1,
2007.
2. A “relevant” criminal offense is any offense that would trigger the
movement and residency restrictions of SB 471.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference is set in this case for November 9,
2021 at 11:45 AM by videoconference. The instruction for videoconference appearance to be
issued. The status conference will, in part, address the issue of damages.
DATED: September 30, 2021.
__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?