Hull v. Aranas et al

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING ECF No. 16 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 8/25/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Plaintiff,

5
v.

6
7

3:15-cv-0348-RCJ-VPC

ROGER HULL,

ORDER

ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Roger Hunt (“plaintiff”) for sanctions for

10
11

retaliation against plaintiff (ECF No. 16). Defendants Isidro Baca, Daren Baker, Gene Beitler,

12

James Gaida, Shannon Moyle, Eugene Murguia, Benjamin Murphy, Kathryn Reynolds, and Holly

13

Skulstad (“defendants”) opposed (ECF No. 19)1, and plaintiff’s replied (ECF No. 20). For the

14

reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

15

I.

Procedural History
The court issued a screening order concerning plaintiff’s complaint on January 26, 2016,

16
17

(ECF No. 6). As plaintiff correctly notes, the basis of his underlying complaint is that defendants

18

have excessively lit his dorm unit twenty-four hours a day, which causes plaintiff migraines,

19

burning eyes, seeing spots, and frequent headaches. Id. The court allowed Counts III, IV, and V,

20

alleging violations of plaintiff’s conditions of confinement, to proceed. Id. An inmate early

21

mediation conference was held May 10, 2015 (ECF No. 13). The case did not settle, and so the

22

case returned to the standard civil litigation track for Section 1983 inmate litigation (ECF No. 15).

23

Plaintiff filed the present motion for sanctions shortly thereafter, and he also filed a

24

motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 17), which is not the subject of this order. The gist

25

of plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is that following the unsuccessful mediation, defendants Baca

26
27
28

1

Defendants’ counsel is advised that the Court will not accept papers styled as “omnibus.” Notwithstanding that
plaintiff’s motion for sanctions may include similar fact or legal issues, it is defendants’ counsel’s obligation to file
separate opposing points and authorities. Otherwise, confusion may result on the docket.

1

and Moyle retaliated against him by installing six more red lights in Units 10A and 10B at

2

Northern Nevada Correctional Center where plaintiff resides.

3

II.

Discussion and Analysis

4

Plaintiff offers no legal basis for the filing of his motion for sanctions. Rather, the motion

5

is simply a continuation of plaintiff’s claim that the constant illumination in his unit is a violation

6

of his conditions of confinement. That claim is already before the court, and despite the fact that

7

the problem persists – at least in plaintiff’s view – this is not a basis for an award of sanctions,

8

monetary or otherwise. Defendants respond that no additional lighting was installed; instead, new

9

bulbs were installed in Unit 10 on June 2, 2016 pursuant to Operational Procedure 710 (ECF No.

10

19; Exhs. A, B, C, & D).

11

III.

Conclusion

12

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 16) is DENIED.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: August 25, 2016.

15
16

______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2