Willing v. Fed Judge (RFB) et al

Filing 29

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs 26 , 27 Motions for Preliminary Injunction, 25 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 24 Motion for Pleading Special Matters, and 23 Motion to Strike are DENIED with prejudice. This Case will remain CLOSED. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/29/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8

NICHOLAS JAMES WILLING,
vs.

Plaintiff,

FED JUDGE (RFB), et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:23-cv-00857-GMN-MDC
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

9
10

Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), was dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk was

11

directed to close this case. (Order, ECF No. 22). Since then, Plaintiff has filed five new

12

motions, (ECF Nos. 23–27). Even liberally construing these new motions as Rule 60(b)

13

motions, Plaintiff provides no legal support for his argument which has been denied in many

14

similar suits brought in this district. Plaintiff was convicted in Nye County and makes the

15

general argument that Senate Bill 182 is unconstitutional because in 1951, three Nevada

16

Justices sat on the commission to revise the Nevada Revised Statutes and were thus improperly

17

delegated legislative powers. Even if SB 182 created a committee in 1951 that grouped laws of

18

similar subject matter together in a logical order, this does not render the Nevada Revised

19

Statutes unconstitutional, nor would it vacate Plaintiff’s conviction. See Taylor v. State, 472

20

P.3d 195 (Nev. 2020) (table). As many other state and federal courts presented with the same

21

argument have all found, the Legislative Counsel Bureau—which succeeded the statute revision

22

commission—does not itself exercise a legislative function. See, e.g., Taylor, 472 P.3d 195;

23

Wilson v. Nevada, No. 2:22-cv-00978, 2022 WL 7553743, at *3 (D. Nev. Oct 13, 2022); Beard

24

v. Nevada, No. 2:22-CV-01156, 2022 WL 17253788, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 23, 2022).

25

Accordingly, there was no improper delegation of legislative authority.
Page 1 of 2

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction,

2

(ECF Nos. 26, 27), Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, (ECF No. 25), Motion for

3

Pleading Special Matters, (ECF No. 24), and Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 23) are DENIED with

4

prejudice. This Case will remain CLOSED.

5
6

29 day of August, 2024.
DATED this _____

7
8
9

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2