Miller v. Aranas et al
Filing
130
ORDER granting ECF No. 129 Unopposed Motion to Modify Joint Pretrial Order. Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 123 ) modified to include additional claims for relief as specified herein. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/7/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)
Case 3:17-cv-00068-MMD-WGC Document 130 Filed 12/07/21 Page 1 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TERRI KEYSER-COOPER, NV Bar 3984
Law Office of Terri Keyser-Cooper
2395 Viejo Place
Lake Havasu City, AZ 86406
(775) 337-0323
keysercooper@lawyer.com
DIANE K. VAILLANCOURT, NV Bar 9277
Law Office of Diane K. Vaillancourt
849 Almar Ave., Ste. C403
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 332-2303
vaillancourt@cruzio.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Clifford Miller
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
12
13
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CLIFFORD W. MILLER
Plaintiff,
14
15
vs.
16
17
Defendants.
__________________________________/
UNOPPOSED MOTION
TO MODIFY PRETRIAL ORDER
(Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e))
Bench Trial Date:
Time:
March 28,2022
9:00 a.m.
Jury Trial date:
Time:
April 4, 2022
9:00 a.m.
ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
18
Case No. 3:17-cv-0068-MMD-WCG
19
20
I.
MODIFICATION OF THE PRETRIAL ORDER
21
“Under Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court has authority to
22
modify a pretrial order if, in the court’s discretion, the modification is necessary to prevent manifest
23
injustice.” United States v. First National Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 1981). For a court
24
25
26
27
to properly exercise its discretion to modify the order, it must consider such factors as: (1) the degree of
prejudice to the plaintiff resulting from a failure to modify; (2) the degree of prejudice to defendant from
a modification; (3) the impact of a modification at this stage of the litigation on the orderly and efficient
28
1
Case 3:17-cv-00068-MMD-WGC Document 130 Filed 12/07/21 Page 2 of 7
1
conduct of the case; and (4) the degree of willfulness, bad faith, or inexcusable neglect on the part of the
2
moving party. Olivier v. Union Pacific, 862 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1988).
3
4
5
6
7
II.
MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED
A. Modification To Include Additional Injunctive Relief In Plaintiff’s Retaliation Claim
In the JPO, Plaintiff Miller requested only the removal of Plaintiff’s discipline from his NDOC
record in his retaliation claim. To align NDOC’s policy with the PLRA’s grievance mandate, Plaintiff
8
seeks to add an additional item of injunctive relief: An order directing NDOC to clarify when and under
9
what circumstances an inmate must administratively exhaust an ADA claim when he has previously
10
exhausted a medical claim. Therefore, should Plaintiff Miller prevail on this claim, he would move this
11
12
13
14
Court for such an order.
There is an inescapable conflict between the law and NDOC grievance polices which must be
modified to avoid manifest injustice. By challenging the retaliation claim, NDOC makes clear it has no
15
intention of resolving this conflict and other inmates will likely suffer the same fact as Miller
16
foreseeably will suffer again because of this conflict. Miller is an inmate who is serving a life sentence.
17
He has a disability – blindness in one-eye – that involves conditions of confinement and utilization of
18
medical services. It is foreseeable that in the course of his incarceration, he will need again to grieve
19
20
21
22
matters that involve both his constitutional rights and the ADA. His ability to do so will be chilled by the
continuation of NDOC’s policy promising discipline for following the PLRA’s legal mandate.
In 2017, when Miller filed his federal lawsuit, he alleged only a § 1983 action. In 2019, Miller
23
sought to add an ADA claim. Miller read the law requiring exhaustion of all claims brought under all
24
federal laws. Miller was aware that O’Guinn v. Lovelock Correctional Center, 502 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th
25
Cir. 2007) held that suits brought under the ADA, or any other Federal law, must be exhausted pursuant
26
27
28
to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”):
Nothing in the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act carves out an exception to the PLRA
2
Case 3:17-cv-00068-MMD-WGC Document 130 Filed 12/07/21 Page 3 of 7
1
4
exhaustion requirement. On the other hand, the PLRA specifically prohibits suits ‘under
section 1983 of this title or any other Federal law.’ 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a), absent
exhaustion.” See Salgado v. Garcia, 384 F. 3d 769, 773-74 (9th Cir. 2004). The Supreme
Court has noted that in enacting the PLRA Congress intended it to apply to all federal
laws with respect to prisoner suits, with the intent that prison officials would have the
first opportunity to address prison conditions.” (Emp. added).
5
Miller was in an impossible Catch-22 position, damned if he filed an ADA grievance and
6
damned if he didn’t. Miller filed an ADA grievance to begin the exhaustion process on what would be
2
3
7
8
9
10
his ADA claim. Miller was promptly disciplined. NDOC asserted Miller had abused the grievance
process because his 2016 grievance was the same as his 2016 grievance, duplicative and thus subject to
discipline. Yet as Judge Cobb noted, if Plaintiff had not attempted to exhaust his ADA claim, his ADA
11
claim was subject to a dismissal or summary judgment for failure to exhaust. (ECF No. 99, 14 at 11-16).
12
By following the law as mandated in the PLRA, Miller brought discipline upon himself for
13
failing to follow NDOC rules. This conflict between the PLRA and NDPC rules cannot be allowed to
14
stand. Miller and other inmates will be harmed if it is permitted to stand.
15
16
17
18
The issue is made more complex by the October 14, 2019 grievance response by Warden
Wickham affirming Miller’s discipline: “The NDOC grievance process does not make a distinction
between a medical complaint or ADA complaint.” Maybe so, but federal law does in fact make such a
19
distinction. In federal court an ADA claim is vastly different than a § 1983 claim, with different
20
elements, defenses, and proof requirements. Adding further confusion, NDOC’s grievance policy
21
mandates “one issue” only per grievance. Had Plaintiff brought up an ADA claim and a medical claim,
22
23
asking for different relief, in the same grievance, he would again be subjected to discipline. Court
intervention is respectfully requested to avoid the manifest injustice this confusion creates. NDOC will
24
25
26
27
not be prejudiced by this modification; NDOC has been on notice of this Catch-22 situation as the
parties have addressed this issue in all pleadings. There is no issue of bad faith or inexcusable neglect.
B. Modification to Include Additional Injunctive Relief In Plaintiff’s ADA Claim
28
3
Case 3:17-cv-00068-MMD-WGC Document 130 Filed 12/07/21 Page 4 of 7
1
Plaintiff respectfully requests the JPO be modified to include a Court order that the “one good
2
eye policy,” Medical Directive (“M.D.”) 123.03, be modified or eliminated, should he prevail in this
3
4
5
6
action. It was held to be the “paradigm of deliberate indifference” in the Colwell v. Bannister case. The
Ninth Circuit soundly rebuked NDOC for its “one good eye policy” yet the policy continues in full force
to this day.
7
As matters stand, if Miller were to secure a jury verdict in his favor on his ADA claim, NDOC
8
would remain free to not remove, modify, or amend, MD 123.03 – just as it failed to do following the
9
Ninth Circuit’s decision in Colwell v. Bannister. This Court has noted that “M.D. 123.03 is essentially a
10
‘one good eye policy’ because an inmate is not eligible for cataract surgery if he or she has a normal
11
12
13
14
visual acuity in one eye.” (ECF 109, 5 at 1-3).
This “one good eye policy” violates U.S. Code § 12182(2)(A) because it imposes an “eligibility
criteria that screens out or tends to screen out an individual with a disability” from enjoying the services,
15
facilities, privileges, advantages that nondisabled persons enjoy. It is facially discriminatory because an
16
inmate with monocular blindness, like Miller, who is disabled, will be precluded from cataract
17
consideration on the basis of his disability. If Miller had two bad eyes – whether disabled or not – M.D.
18
123 would permit him to have surgery; but if he has “one good eye” he cannot. Miller’s disability
19
20
21
22
precludes him from consideration for cataract surgery when, under this policy, nondisabled inmates
without blindness in either eye are candidates for cataract surgery. That is a facially discriminatory
policy on the basis of Miller’s disability.
23
For all of these reasons Miller respectfully requests that he be permitted to modify his relief
24
request to include not only damages for intentional discrimination, but also an order that NDOC modify
25
or eliminate M.D. 123.03. Such an order would prevent manifest injustice and future discrimination
26
against inmates disabled with monocular blindness who still have one good eye. This JPO modification
27
28
4
Case 3:17-cv-00068-MMD-WGC Document 130 Filed 12/07/21 Page 5 of 7
1
will not prejudice NDOC as Miller has put this topic at issue in all his pleadings. There is no issue of
2
bad faith or inexcusable neglect.
3
4
5
6
7
III.
CONCLUSION AND CERTIFICATION
Miller respectfully requests the JPO filed in this matter, (ECF No. 123) be modified to add the
two above mentioned claims for relief to avoid manifest injustice.
DATED: This 7th day of December 2021.
Terri Keyser-Cooper
8
/s/
9
TERRI KEYSER-COOPER
DIANE K. VAILLANCOURT
Attorneys for Plaintiff Miller
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED:
14
15
16
17
18
________________________________
THE HONORABLE MIRANDA DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED:
December 7, 2021
___________________
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case 3:17-cv-00068-MMD-WGC Document 129 Filed 12/07/21 Page 6 of 7
130
1
DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY DIANE K. VAILLANCOURT
2
3
4
5
I, Diane K. Vaillancourt, am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada
and am one of the attorneys of record representing Plaintiff Miller in the above-entitled matter.
1.
On Friday, November 26, 2021, my colleague Terri Keyser-Cooper emailed the
6
above “Motion to Modify Pretrial Order” to defense counsel Rands to see if he would agree to it
7
and permit plaintiff’s counsel to file the motion as unopposed. I was copied with this email.
8
9
2.
On Monday, December 6, 2021, defense counsel Rands wrote Ms. Keyser-Cooper
and myself a return email agreeing to the motion being filed as unopposed with certain suggested
10
changes.
11
3.
12
13
14
15
16
On this date, I returned defense counsel Rands’ email agreeing to the suggested
changes and confirming that I would file the motion as unopposed.
4.
I incorporated the suggested changes verbatim into the motion and adjusted the title
of the motion to alert the Court to the fact that the motion is unopposed.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, except as to the
matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
17
18
19
20
DATED: December 7, 2021
/s/
Diane K. Vaillancourt
Diane K. Vaillancourt
LAW OFFICE OF DIANE K. VAILLANCOURT
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case 3:17-cv-00068-MMD-WGC Document 129 Filed 12/07/21 Page 7 of 7
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Diane K. Vaillancourt, declare as follows:
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is 849
Almar Ave., Ste. C403, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.
On this date, I served a copy of the following documents on the parties in this action as
follows:
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY RELIEF REQUESTED IN JPO
[]
BY UNITED STATES MAIL. By placing a true copy of the above-referenced document(s)
in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid to the addressee(s) listed below.
[]
BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION. By transmitting a true copy of the document(s) by
facsimile transmission
[ ]
BY HAND-DELIVERY. By delivering a true copy enclosed in a sealed envelope to the
address(es) shown below.
[X ] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. By electronically mailing a true copy of the document(s) to
defendants at the following email addresses via the Court’s electronic filing procedure:
15
16
17
18
19
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
DOUGLAS R. RANDS
Senior Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
20
21
22
23
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: December 7, 2021.
Diane K. Vaillancourt
24
/s/
25
DIANE K. VAILLANCOURT
26
27
28
7
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?