Chernetsky v. State Of Nevada et al
Filing
239
ORDER - The Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 236 ) is DENIED. The Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 237 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/12/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
ANTHONY THOMAS CHERNETSKY,
7
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
STATE OF NEVADA et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:06-cv-00252-RCJ-WGC
ORDER
This case arises out of Defendants’ refusal to permit Plaintiff to use certain artifacts
13
during religious rituals and the confiscation of some of those artifacts. The Court granted
14
summary judgment to Defendants and denied summary judgment to Plaintiff as to claims two
15
through nine. However, as to the first claim for failure to permit the use of a sweat lodge for
16
Wiccan religious rituals, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff in part and to
17
Defendants in part, ruling that Defendants could not deny the use of the sweat lodge to Wiccans
18
under the same conditions that it permitted its use to Native Americans. The Court denied
19
motions to reconsider. The parties cross-appealed. Oral argument on the appeal has been
20
continued pending settlement negotiations. In the meantime, Plaintiff asked the Court to hold
21
Defendants in civil contempt for failure to comply. The Court denied the motion both as moot
22
and on the merits. Plaintiff has asked the Court to reconsider. The Court declines to reconsider.
23
///
24
///
25
///
1
CONCLUSION
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 236) is DENIED.
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 237) is
4
5
6
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: This 12 day of November, 2016.
Dated this 21stth day of December, 2016.
7
8
9
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2 of 2
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?