Smith v. NDOC et al

Filing 155

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 150 Motion for Video Recording of a Cell or Area Search. Defendants must no later than 3/24/2025, file a report with the Court advising if there is any record, whether video, audio, or in a paper format, of the search of Plaintiff's cell to which he refers in his Motion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request that he be present for any search of his cell is denied. See Order for Details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 3/3/2025. (For Distribution by law library.)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

KEITON SMITH,

5

Case No. 2:22-cv-00872-CDS-EJY

Plaintiff,

6

ORDER

v.

7

NDOC, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
10

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Video Recording of Cell or

11

Area Search. ECF No. 150. The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ Response (ECF

12

No. 152), which is mostly non-responsive to Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court is also

13

in receipt of Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF No. 153).

14

The Court finds Plaintiff’s moving papers did not seek injunctive relief (albeit

15

Plaintiff makes this request in his Reply, which is denied).1 The Court further finds

16

Plaintiff provides adequate points and authorities to support his initial Motion. The

17

Court also finds Plaintiff’s Motion relates to missing documents following a search

18

of his cell—such documents directly relate to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims

19

pending before the Court—that has sufficient nexus to his claims. The Court, as it

20

does for all IFP prisoner plaintiffs, liberally construes the Motion.

21
22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Video Recording of
Cell or Area Search (ECF No. 150) is GRANTED in part as follows:

23

1.

Defendants must no later than March 24, 2025, file a report with the

24

Court advising if there is any record, whether video, audio, or in a paper format, of

25

the search of Plaintiff’s cell to which he refers in his Motion.

26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Reply sets out the standard for injunctive relief and argues irreparable harm. Raising injunctive
relief in Reply fails to provide Defendants with a meaningful opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s request. If Plaintiff
seeks an order granting injunctive relief, he may refile a separate motion arguing he meets the standard for such relief
thereby giving Defendants the opportunity to oppose such a motion.

1

1

1

2.

Defendants are to return any documents related to this lawsuit to

2

Plaintiff or, if such documents no longer exist, explain what if anything was taken

3

and why it was destroyed.

4
5

3.

If Defendants contend nothing was taken from Plaintiff’s cell during

the search, Defendants are to file a declaration to that effect with the Court.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request that he be present for any

7

search of his cell is denied. The Court does not have an adequate basis to determine

8

that such an order is necessary.

9

Dated this 3rd day of March, 2025.

10
11
12
13

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2