Bluehorse v. City of Reno, Nevada et al

Filing 9

ORDER that ECF Nos. 1 -2 motion for preliminary injunction, 5 application to proceed in forma pauperis and 7 application to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as moot; ECF No. 7 request for reimbursement of filing is denied; and ECF No. 8 motion for permission to e-file is denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

AKENATEN BLUEHORSE,

10

Case No. 3:17-cv-00702-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11
CITY OF RENO, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee in the custody of the Washoe County Detention

15

Facility when he initiated this case. Plaintiff has submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant

16

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a motion for preliminary injunction, two applications to proceed in

17

forma pauperis, a request for a filing fee reimbursement, and a motion for permission to

18

e-file. (ECF No. 1-1, 1-2, 5, 7, 8.) Plaintiff paid the full filing fee for this case. (ECF No. 4.)

19

Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated. (ECF No. 6.) The Court has not yet screened the

20

complaint.

21

I.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

22

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction raised issues about his medical

23

treatment at the Washoe County Detention Facility. (See generally ECF No. 1-2.) The

24

Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction as moot because Plaintiff is no

25

longer incarcerated at the county jail and has not demonstrated a reasonable expectation

26

of returning to the county jail. See Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519-22 (9th Cir. 1991)

27

(holding that claims for injunctive relief related to a prison’s policies are moot where a

28

prisoner has been transferred to another facility and shows no reasonable expectation of

1

return); see Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982) (exception to mootness that case

2

is capable of repetition yet evading review limited to circumstances where there is a

3

reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subject to the same

4

action again).

5

The Court makes no determination on the merits of the allegations in Plaintiff’s

6

complaint. The Court will enter a screening order on the complaint in a separate order.

7

The screening process will take several months.

8

II.

The Court denies the applications to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5, 7) as

9
10

MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

moot in light of the fully paid filing fee.

11

The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s request to be “reimbursed filing fee that was

12

borrowed (and paid a few days ago).” (ECF No. 7 at 1). However, the Court denies the

13

request at this time. The Court notes that a person named Terrance Walker paid the $400

14

filing fee on Plaintiff’s behalf in person to the Clerk’s Office in cash. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff

15

is not Terrance Walker and the Court will not issue Plaintiff $400 paid by another person.

16

The Court also denies the motion for permission to e-file (ECF No. 8) without

17

prejudice at this time. Plaintiff may re-file this motion but must explain why he is unable

18

to file through U.S. Mail or in person given his proximity to the federal courthouse.

19

III.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion for preliminary injunction

20
21

(ECF No. 1-2) is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the applications to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5,

22
23

CONCLUSION

7) are denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the request for reimbursement of filing fee (ECF No. 7) is

24
25

denied.

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1
2
3

It is further ordered that the motion for permission to e-file (ECF No. 8) is denied
without prejudice.
DATED THIS 12th day of January 2018.

4
5

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3