Richards v. Cox et al

Filing 91

ORDER - Defendant Boardman shall file his supplemental brief within 14 days of this order. Thereafter, plaintiff Richards has 10 days to respond, and then, defendant Boardman may reply, if he chooses, in 5 days. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/17/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:16-cv-01794-JCM-BNW Document 91 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

STACEY M. RICHARDS,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:16-CV-1794 JCM (BNW)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
GREG COX, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court is the matter of Richards v. Cox et al., case number 2:16-cv01794-JCM-BNW.

15

On May 23, 2019, this court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion for

16

summary judgment. (ECF No. 73). Specifically, “plaintiff’s second, third, and fourth causes of

17

action [we]re dismissed” in full; and “plaintiff’s sole remaining § 1983 claim [was] dismissed as

18

to defendants Byrne, Fletcher, and Gittere,” but permitted to proceed “against CO Boardman,

19

Director Cox, and Warden Baker” (collectively, the “remaining defendants”). (Id.). This court

20

declined to reconsider its decision. (ECF No. 83). The remaining defendants timely appealed.

21

(ECF No. 85).

22

In its memorandum disposition, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case, affirming in part

23

and vacating in part this court’s decision. (ECF No. 87). The panel upheld this court’s 1) denial

24

of “Director Cox and Warden Baker[’s] . . . qualified immunity from Richards’s Eighth

25

Amendment claims against them” and 2) “determin[ation] that the constitutional right violated

26

was ‘clearly established’ when [plaintiff] Richards was shot in the face on April 21, 2015.” (Id.).

27

However, the panel found that this court erred in its analysis of “whether Officer

28

Boardman was entitled to qualified immunity from Richards’s Eighth Amendment claim” and

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-01794-JCM-BNW Document 91 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 2

1

“whether Officer Boardman’s actions violated a clearly established right.” (Id.). Thus, these

2

issues alone were vacated and remanded.

3

Upon review of the parties’ prior briefing, this court finds it appropriate that the parties

4

further brief the remanded issues for summary judgment on 1) Officer Boardman’s qualified

5

immunity and 2) Officer Boardman’s alleged violations of clearly established rights, with the

6

Ninth Circuit’s instructions in mind.

7

Defendant Boardman shall file his supplemental brief within 14 days of this order.

8

Thereafter, plaintiff Richards has 10 days to respond, and then, defendant Boardman may reply,

9

if he chooses, in 5 days.

10

Accordingly,

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED February 17, 2021.

13
14

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-