Tripp v. Bisbee et al
Filing
15
ORDER denying 10 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order and denying 11 Motion to Amend. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/9/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
7
_____________________________________
WALTER TRIPP,
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff,
vs.
CONNIE BISBEE et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:15-cv-00030-RCJ-VPC
ORDER
12
13
Plaintiff Walter Tripp is a convicted sex offender. He sued four members of the Nevada
14
Board of Parole Commissioners in this Court, claiming that they violated his rights under the
15
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment via their alleged policy of automatically
16
denying parole to sex offenders. The Court dismissed the Complaint with prejudice upon
17
screening under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915A both because Defendants were entitled to quasi-judicial
18
immunity and because Plaintiff could not attack the lawfulness of his confinement via a civil
19
action for damages but only via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Both this Court and the
20
Court of Appeals found the appeal to be frivolous and therefore denied in forma pauperis status
21
on appeal. The Court of Appeals ordered Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee by October 7, 2015 if
22
he wished to proceed anyway. Plaintiff has asked the Court to reconsider its dismissal and for
23
leave to amend. To the extent it has jurisdiction to consider them, the Court denies the motions.
24
1 of 2
CONCLUSION
1
2
3
4
5
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider and the Motion to Amend
(ECF Nos. 10, 11) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 9th day of November, 2015.
Dated this 30th day of September, 2015.
6
7
8
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?