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)

Download PDF
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?