Slaughter v. Escamilla et al

Filing 157

ORDER approving ECF No. 156 Amended Joint Pretrial Order. Calendar Call set for 1/19/2021 before Chief Judge Miranda M. Du. Court/Jury Trial set for 2/8/2021 at before Chief Judge Miranda M. Du. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/14/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 13

1
2
3
4

Nicholas Shook
NV Bar 13400
4865 Fiesta Lakes St.
Las Vegas, NV 89130
E-mail: [e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiff

5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9

RICKIE SLAUGHTER

Case No. 3-16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC

Plaintiff,
AMENDED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

10

vs.

11

ESCAMILLA, et. al,

12

Defendants

13
Defendants, Shane Escamilla, Stephen Mollet, Sandra Rose-Thayer, and Melissa Travis,
14
by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Peter E.
15
Dunkley, Deputy Attorney General, and Plaintiff, Rickie Slaughter, by and through counsel,
16
Nicholas R. Shook, do hereby submit the following proposed joint pretrial order in this case, and
17
pursuant to LR 16-3 and 16-4. The parties have conferred and circulated drafts.
18
After pretrial proceedings in this case,
19
IT IS ORDERED:
20
I.

NATURE OF ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

21
A. Nature Of Action And Identification Of Parties
22
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by inmate Plaintiff Rickie Slaughter
23
(“Plaintiff”), asserting claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff attained pro bono counsel
24
after the close of discovery.
25
Shane Escamilla, during the relevant times, was a Correctional Officer at Ely State Prison.
26
Stephen Mollet, during the relevant times, was a Correctional Officer at Ely State Prison.
27
Mollet does not remember making any statements to Slaughter and is not aware of any inmates
28
1

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 13

1

being required to live for two days without bedding or a mattress prior to being transferred, and

2

does not remember escorting Slaughter to a bus for transfer to a correctional facility in Arizona.

3

Sandra Rose-Thayer, during the relevant times, was working in the law library at Ely State

4

Prison as a law library supervisor. Rose-Thayer denies withholding access to the library or

5

copywork from Slaughter because of a lawsuit or grievance.

6
7
8

Melissa Travis, during the relevant time, was a caseworker at Ely State Prison. Travis
denies having any authority to effect an inmate transfer.
B. Contentions Of The Parties

9
10

1. Plaintiff’s Contentions
Shane Escamilla, during the relevant times, was a Correctional Officer at Ely State Prison,

11

unlawfully retaliated against Mr. Slaughter for his protected grievance activities by confiscating

12

Plaintiff Slaughter’s complaint documents against several NDOC officials.

13

Sandra Rose-Thayer, during the relevant times, was working in the law library at Ely State

14

Prison, failed to rectify Escamilla’s violation of Mr. Slaughter’s acts and made the situation worse

15

by conspiring further violations of Mr. Slaughter’s rights, including confiscating Mr. Slaughter’s

16

legal papers, refusing to provide him copy work, denying access to the ESP law library, and

17

threats to fabricate false disciplinary charges against Mr. Slaughter and threats to deny Mr.

18

Slaughter from further law activities.

19

Melissa Travis, during the relevant time, was a caseworker at Ely State Prison, in addition

20

to acting with Sandra Rose-Thayer as evidenced above placed Mr. Slaughter on a list for

21

consideration for Mr. Slaughter to be transferred out of state, and “but for” her placement on that

22

list, Mr. Slaughter would not have been transferred to Arizona as he was not included in the initial

23

list of inmates to be sent out-of-state.

24

Stephen Mollet, during the relevant times, was a Correctional Officer at Ely State Prison

25

directed Mr. Slaughter to pack his possessions which left Mr. Slaughter without a bed for two

26

days prior to being transferred and retaliated against Mr. Slaughter by conspiring with Travis,

27

Rose-Thayer to add Mr. Slaughter’s name to the transfer list which he otherwise would not have

28

been added to.
2

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 13

1

2. Defendant’s Contentions

2

Shane Escamilla, during the relevant times, was a Correctional Officer at Ely State Prison.

3

Escamilla followed the applicable ARs and OPs and denies improperly withholding any of

4

Slaughter’s copy work. Escamilla denies having any authority to effect an inmate transfer.

5

Stephen Mollet, during the relevant times, was a Correctional Officer at Ely State Prison.

6

Mollet followed the applicable ARs and OPs and does not remember making any statements to

7

Slaughter, does not remember any inmate was required to live for two days without bedding or a

8

mattress prior to being transferred, and does not remember escorting Slaughter to a bus for

9

transfer to a correctional facility in Arizona. Mollet denies having any authority to effect an

10

inmate transfer.

11

Sandra Rose-Thayer, during the relevant times, was working in the law library at Ely State

12

Prison as a law library supervisor. Rose-Thayer followed the applicable ARs and OPs and denies

13

withholding access to the library or copywork from Slaughter because of a lawsuit or grievance.

14

Rose- Thayer denies having any authority to effect an inmate transfer.

15

Melissa Travis, during the relevant time, was a case worker at Ely State Prison. Melissa

16

Travis, during the relevant time, was a case worker at Ely State Prison. Travis denies any

17

authority to effect an inmate transfer.

18

II.

19

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This is a civil action commenced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

21

III. UNCONTESTED FACTS ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES WHICH REQUIRE NO

22

PROOF

23

A. The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof:

24

Counts I and II

25

1. Mr. Slaughter submitted copy work to the law library on or about October 15, 2015.

26

2. Defendant Escamilla brought Plaintiff’s legal copy work to his cell on or about

27

October 16, 2015.

28

3. Defendant Escamilla is not required to and did not verify the copy work for Slaughter.
3

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 13

1
2

4. Defendant Escamilla did not give Mr. Slaughter his paperwork on or about October
16, 2015.

3

5. Mr. Slaughter did not sign the verification form on or about October 16, 2015.

4

6. Mr. Slaughter submitted a kite to the law library supervisor on or about October 19,

5

2015 about how Defendant Escamilla is alleged to have treated Mr. Slaughter.

6

7. On October 20, 2015, Mr. Slaughter received a response to the kite.

7

8. On October 26, 2015, Mr. Slaughter received his copywork.

8

9. Operating Procedure (OP) 714(3) indicates the prisoner requesting copy work to sign a

9

Nevada Department of Corrections Copy Work Request Form (DOC 3064) prior to

10

receiving copies.

11

Count III

12

10. In May of 2016, Rose-Thayer withheld copy work.

13

11. On May 18, 2016, Rose-Thayer sent Mr. Slaughter a memorandum indicating her

14

understanding that Mr. Slaughter was not to be in possession of some of the

15

documents for which he had requested copies.

16

12. On May 31, 2016, Mr. Slaughter sent a kite to Rose-Thayer.

17

13. On June 1, 2016, Rose-Thayer responded to the kite, acknowledging her

18

misunderstanding of the request and indicating the return of Mr. Slaughter’s

19

documents.

20
21
22
23

14. Law library access was governed by OP 714 which required request forms to be
submitted no later than 12:00 noon each Wednesday.
15. OP 714(1) states access is first come first served but that requests will be prioritized
according to information on form DOC2049.

24

16. OP 714(3) does not permit inmates to copy other inmates’ legal work.

25

17. Mr. Slaughter submitted a request which was stamped by “ESP LAW LIBRARY July

26

12, 2017.”

27

18. Mr. Slaughter was permitted access to the law library on July 25, and 27, 2017.

28
4

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

19. Mr. Slaughter did not submit a kite or grievance regarding the alleged retaliation claim
relating to the absence of bedding and a mattress prior to his transfer to Arizona.
IV. FACTS UNADMITTED THAT WILL NOT BE CONTESTED
The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence
to the contrary:
NONE
V. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT TO BE TRIED ANDDETERMINED UPON TRIAL
A. Plaintiff’s Contested Facts
1. Whether Escamilla refused to verify Mr. Slaughter’s copywork, denied Mr. Slaughter
the opportunity to count his own copywork on or about October 16, 2019.
2. Whether Escamilla taunted Mr. Slaughter and continued to refuse to provide Mr.

12

Slaughter his legal paperwork on or about October 19, 2015, for about a week.

13

3. Whether Defendant Rose-Thayer falsified a memo to cover-up the fact that Mr.

14
15
16

Slaughter could not count his paperwork.
4. Whether Defendant Rose-Thayer wrongfully denied Mr. Slaughter access to the legal
library.

17

5. Whether Mr. Slaughter would not have been considered for a transfer but for the

18

actions of Defendants, Slaughter would have been transferred out of state.

19
20
21
22

6. Whether Defendant Mollet confiscated Mr. Slaughter’s property two days before Mr.
Slaughter’s transfer out of state, leaving him with nothing in his cell.
7. Whether Mr. Slaughter has suffered unique harm in transferring to a prison not
under NDOC supervision.

23

8. Whether Mr. Slaughter was a high-ranking gang member.

24

9. Whether there were high-ranking gang members that did not get shipped out of state.

25

10. Whether Mr. Slaughter was not initially on the list of inmates to be sent out of state

26
27

when the list was first created by the Offender Management Division.
B. Defendants’ Contested Facts

28
5

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 6 of 13

1
2

1. Whether any of the Defendants had authority regarding Mr. Slaughter’s transfer to
Arizona.

3

2. Whether any Defendants conduct occurred outside of the applicable ARs or OPs.

4

3. Whether Mr. Slaughter is fabricating claims to act as leverage for a preferential

5

assignment to a Nevada NDOC facility.

6

4. Whether Mr. Slaughter can prove any damages for the alleged claims.

7

5. Whether Travis can authorize a transfer.

8

VI. CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED UPON TRIAL

9

The following are the issues of law to be to be tried and determined at trial:

10

A. By the Plaintiff:

11

Whether Escamilla and Rose-Thayer violated Mr. Slaughter’s First Amendment rights to

12
13
14

petition the government without retaliation.
Whether Escamilla, Rose-Thayer, Travis, and Mollet engaged in a civil conspiracy to
deprive Mr. Slaughter of his constitutional rights.

15

Whether Mr. Slaughter suffered damages by being placed in an out-of-state facility.

16

The Defendants’ issues below to their counter-part where applicable.

17

B. By the Defendants:

18

Whether Escamilla’s and Rose-Thayer’s efforts to follow NDOC policy OP 714 gives rise

19
20
21

to constitutional violation or retaliation claims.
Whether Escamilla’s and Rose-Thayer’s efforts to follow NDOC policy OP 714 gives rise to
a constitutional violation or conspiracy claim.

22

Whether Rose-Thayer’s mere delay in processing copy work because of a mistaken belief that

23

Mr. Slaughter was not authorized to be in possession of other inmate’s documents, gives rise to a

24

constitutional violation or retaliation claim.

25

Whether Rose-Thayer’s delay in scheduling law library access during one week, pursuant to

26

OP 714, where access was granted the following week, gives rise to a constitutional violation and

27

retaliation claim.

28

Whether Mr. Slaughter’s transfer to Arizona violated a constitutional right.
6

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 7 of 13

1

Whether any of the named Defendants can be liable for Mr. Slaughter’s transfer to Arizona

2

where there is an absence of any evidence, authority, AR, or OP, which indicates that the named

3

Defendants could direct such a transfer.

4

Whether Mr. Slaughter is entitled to damages because of a mere delay in receiving copy work.

5

Whether Mr. Slaughter is entitled to damages because of a mere delay in law library access.

6

Whether Mr. Slaughter is entitled to damages because of the alleged two-day absence of

7

bedding and a mattress.

8

Whether Mr. Slaughter exhausted administrative remedies when there is no evidence he

9

attempted to grieve or otherwise notify NDOC of the alleged missing bedding and mattress.

10

Whether the alleged two-day absence of bedding and a mattress is a constitutional violation.

11

Whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity defense by attempting to follow

12

NDOC policies.

13

VII. EXHIBITS

14

a.

15

the clerk:

16

The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence in this case and may be so marked by

1. Plaintiff’s Exhibits

17

a. The Defendant exhibits as listed below.

18

b. Declaration of Dwayne Deal (ECF No. 87).

19

c. All relevant Kite records filed by Rickie Slaughter.

20

d. Relevant grievances filed by Rickie Slaughter from the years 2015 onward.

21

e. The inventory records filed by Mr. Slaughter during the last three months he was

22

at Ely State Prison.

23

f. NDOC Administrative Regulations as applicable to custody and criteria.500-

24

700.

25

g. Relevant discovery produced and court filings in the instant case.

26

h. Relevant NOTIS or other electronic notes about Mr. Slaughter written by NODC

27

staff during the last year Mr. Slaughter was at Ely State Prison.

28
7

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 8 of 13

1
2
3

i. Relevant court documents and new articles about the conditions at Saguaro
Correctional Center from the years 2017 onward.
2. Defendants’ Exhibits

4

a. NDOC Administrative Regulation 740, effective date of transfer to Arizona.

5

b. ESP Law Library Operating Procedure 714, effective October of 2015.

6

c. ESP Declaration of Sandra Rose-Thayer (ECF No. 108) and exhibits thereto

7

(ECF Nos. 108-1 through 108-7).

8

d. Declaration of Stephen Mollet (ECF No. 109).

9

e. Declaration of Nancy Flores (ECF No. 110).

10

f. Declaration of Dwayne Deal (ECF No. 87).

11

g. Mr. Slaughter’s Offender Information Summary

12

b. As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the same will be offered objects to

13

their admission on the grounds stated:

14

1. Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

15

j. Documents related to the alleged conditions at Saguaro Correctional Center are

16

worse than at Nevada Department of Corrections facilities. Plaintiff can prove this

17

with court records that have shown inmates to have their throats slit, appendages

18

stabbed, and furthermore Saguaro is not taking the necessary precautionary

19

measures for COVID-19. Basis of objection: relevance to claims and defenses of

20

this case.

21
22

k. Court filings from other cases, relevance.
2. Defendants’ Exhibits:

23

a. Inmate Grievance History, relevance.

24

b. Inmate Disciplinary History, relevance.

25
26
27
28

C. Electronic Evidence:
None.
D. Depositions:
None.
8

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 9 of 13

1

E. Objections to Depositions:

2

None.

3

VIII. WITNESSES

4

A. Plaintiff’s Witnesses:

5

i. Rickie Slaughter

6

ii. Rickie Slaughter Sr.

7

iii. X’Zavione Taylor

8

iv. Aaron Daniels

9

v. Anthony Stewart

10
11

vi. Donald Taylor
vii. Tasheena Sandoval

12

c/o Peter E. Dunkley, Esq.

13

100 North Carson Street

14

Carson City, Nevada 89701

15
16

viii. Larry Lemay
ix. Cedric Dial

17
x. Kwayshawn Williams
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

xi. Any and all rebuttal witnesses that might be called to respond to claims made by either
Defendant or any of their witnesses;
xii. Any and all other witnesses who have personal knowledge supporting Plaintiff’s
statements of fact or law cited herein;
xiii. NDOC official to verify and authenticate exhibits as necessary; and
xiv. All witnesses identified by Defendant, whether or not called to testify at trial.

25
26

B. Defendants’ Witnesses:

27

1. Rickie Slaughter

28
9

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 10 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2. NDOC Warden
c/o Peter E. Dunkley, Esq.
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
3. Law Librarian ESP
c/o Peter E. Dunkley, Esq.
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
4. Shane Escamilla
c/o Peter E. Dunkley,Esq.
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
5. Sandra Rose-Thayer
c/o Peter E. Dunkley, Esq.
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
6. Melissa Travis
c/o Peter E. Dunkley, Esq.
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
7. Stephen Mollet
c/o Peter E. Dunkley, Esq.
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
8. Nancy Flores
c/o Peter E. Dunkley, Esq.
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
9. Dwayne Deal
c/o Peter E. Dunkley, Esq.
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
10. Offender Management Division employee
c/o Peter E. Dunkley, Esq.
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
11. C/o Erikson
c/o Peter E. Dunkley, Esq.
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
12. X’Zavione Taylor

25
13. Aaron Daniels
26
14. Anthony Stewart
27
15. Donald Taylor
28
10

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 11 of 13

1

16. Any and all rebuttal witnesses that might be called to respond to claims made by either

2
3

Plaintiff or any of his witnesses;
17. Any and all other witnesses who have personal knowledge supporting

4

Defendants’ statements of fact or law cited herein;

5

18. NDOC official to verify and authenticate exhibits as necessary; and

6

19. All witnesses identified by Plaintiff, whether or not called to testify at trial. Plaintiff

7

and Defendants reserve the right to interpose objections to the calling of any named

8

witness listed above prior to or at trial.

9

IV. TRIAL AVAILABILITY

10

The attorneys or parties have met and jointly offer these three trial dates:

11

1. January 11, 2021

12

2. January 18, 2021

13

3. January 25, 2021

14

It is expressly understood by the undersigned that the court will set the trial of this matter on one

15

of the agreed-upon dates if possible; if not, the trial will be set at the convenience of the court’s

16

calendar.

17

X. TIME EXPECTED FOR TRIAL

18

The parties estimate the trial will take 7 to 10 days.

19

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

20

/s/ Nicholas Shook

21

Signature of Attorney for Plaintiff

22
23
24

Signature of Attorney for Defendants

25

XI. ACTION BY THE COURT

26

This case is set for court/jury trial on the fixed/stacked calendar on February 8, 2021.

27

Calendar call will be held on January 19, 2021.

28

This pretrial order has been approved by the parties to this action as evidenced by their
11

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 12 of 13

1

signatures or the signatures of their attorneys hereon, and the order is hereby entered and will

2

govern the trial of this case. This order may not be amended except by court order and based upon

3

the parties’ agreement or to prevent manifest injustice.

4
5

DATED: October 14, 2020

.

6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12

Case 3:16-cv-00457-MMD-WGC Document 157 Filed 10/14/20 Page 13 of 13

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have electronically filed the motion above with the electronic filing system

3
of this court, which all relevant parties registered with.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Nicholas Shook, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 13400
4865 Fiesta Lakes St.
Las Vegas, NV 89130
510.989.5590
Counsel for Plaintiff

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13