Paterson v. State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 52

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 50 Motion. The Court directs counsel for Defendants, within 7 days of the date of this order, to ascertain the identity of which "Patterson" was in the control bubble and provide that information to the Plaintiff and thereafter provide a Notice to the Court to that effect. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 05/14/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JEFFREY S. PATERSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel.
)
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

3:11-cv-00845-HDM-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
May 14, 2013

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE OGDEN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR Plaintiff(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the Court is Plaintiff's request for Clarification of Identity (Doc. # 50). Plaintiff seeks
to clarify “which Patterson was in the unit 7 control at the time of the Altercation.” (Id.) Defendant
has opposed (Doc. #51) on the basis that the NOTIS report Plaintiff previously requested has been
made available to him and that the NOTIS report states “Chester Patterson was the officer in the
control bubble...” (Id.) Thus, defendant concludes Plaintiff has answered his own question and the
motion should be denied (defendant also asserts the time period for discovery has passed). (Id. at 2.)
However, Defendant has omitted a portion of Plaintiff’s quotation of the NOTIS report,
which reads in full as follows: “Chester Patterson was the officer in the control bubble not Derrick
Patterson” (Doc. 50). This leaves the court to believe there may be some kind of confusion as to
whether Chester Patterson was in the control bubble or whether it was Derrick Patterson.
The screening order entered earlier in this matter concluded that Plaintiff stated a viable civil
rights claim as to correctional officers Patterson and Columbus for not providing assistance to
Plaintiff when he was allegedly being assault by other inmates. (Doc. # 3 at 2.) Although it appears
defendant Patterson has been dismissed from this action (Doc. # 36), it may be that ascertaining
which “Patterson” was in the bubble may be important to Plaintiff’s case.

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:11-cv-00845-HDM-WGC
Date: May 14, 2013
Page 2
Although the discovery deadline may have passed at the present time, the court notes that in
Doc. # 45, on April 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to allow him access to the NOTIS report. He
states he “kited” seeking to review this document on March 7, 2013, but that initially his request was
“not approved in this matter will provide upon proper order.” That response prompted Defendants’
response to Plaintiff’s request which represented that Plaintiff was thereafter allowed to review the
Inspector General’s report (Doc. #48-1). This representation in turn caused the court to deny
Plaintiff's motion as moot (Doc. # 49).
It now appears that the issue may not have been moot because Plaintiff alleges that there may
have been two NDOC Correctional Officers named “Patterson” and he wishes to clarify which one
was in the control bubble. (Doc # 50). Defendants’ response, which did not discuss the apparent or
possible discrepancy between “Chester Patterson” vs “Derrick Patterson,” does not answer the
question, which, as noted above, may be important from the standpoint of which Patterson was
involved (the court also notes that Plaintiff only identified defendant Patterson in his complaint as
“Correctional Officer Patterson.” (Doc. # 4 at 2).)
Therefore, the objection that the discovery deadline may have passed, while possibly
technically correct, does not address the attempt by Plaintiff to ascertain this information as early as
March 7 when discovery was still open.
Accordingly, the court directs counsel for Defendants, within 7 days of the date of this
order, to ascertain the identity of which “Patterson” was in the control bubble and provide that
information to the Plaintiff and thereafter provide a Notice to the court to that effect.
To that extent, therefore, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 50), is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk