Sonntag v. Balaam et al

Filing 140

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the 126 , 127 , 128 , 131 , and 133 are DENIED. FURTH ORD that the 134 Motion to Stay is DENIED. FURTH ORD that the 136 Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP on Appeal is GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/31/2011. (NEF sent to USCA)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 JASON ERIC SONNTAG, 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11 DENNIS BALAAM et al., 12 Defendants. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:07-cv-00311-RCJ -RAM 3:07-cr-00311-RCJ-RAM ORDER 14 15 Plaintiff Jason Eric Sonntag sued several Defendants for constitutional violations arising 16 out of his pretrial detention at the Washoe County Jail. The Court granted summary judgment to 17 Defendants as against the remaining claims in the Third Amended Complaint. (See Order, Mar. 18 3, 2011, ECF No. 124). Plaintiff has appealed, but several motions remain pending upon which 19 the Court must rule before the Court of Appeals may consider the appeal. Although variously 20 titled, all the motions except two are in substance motions to reconsider, and the Court declines 21 to reconsider. As to the remaining two motions, the Court declines to grant a stay but grants 22 leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 1 2 3 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Reconsider (ECF Nos. 126, 127, 128, 131, 133) are DENIED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay (ECF No. 134) is DENIED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on 6 Appeal (ECF No. 136) is GRANTED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated this 31st day of May, 2011. 9 10 _____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge 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?