United States District Court, D. Nevada
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Charlene Hoerth and Patrick Saunders (hereinafter "defendants"). (Doc. # 296). Pro se plaintiff Robert Joseph McCarty (hereinafter "plaintiff") filed a response. (Doc. # 300).
Also before the court is plaintiff's motion to reconsider. (Doc. # 290). Defendants filed a response, (doc. # 298), and plaintiff filed a reply, (doc. # 299).
Also before the court is plaintiff's motion to amend complaint. (Doc. # 292). Defendant filed a response, (doc. # 301), and plaintiff filed a reply, (doc. # 302).
On or about September 26, 2011, plaintiff filed a civil rights action against Nevada's Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, Charlene Hoerth ("Hoerth"), Patrick Saunders ("Saunders"), two Nevada Department of Safety employees, and two federal officials, John Roos, Ambassador to Japan, and Joseph Koen, United States Consul to Japan.
On December 2, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint for monetary damages, injunctive relief, expunction of his criminal record, and a full name and identity change. (Doc. # 8).
On March 22, 2013, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint naming eight additional defendants to those already identified in the amended complaint. (Doc. # 133). In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that his civil rights were violated when he was required to register as a sex offender in Nevada based on his sex offense conviction in Japan. Plaintiff asserted that his conviction was secured wrongfully, without due process.
Thereafter, federal and state defendants each filed two motions to dismiss all parties and claims. (Docs. # 136, 156, 193 & 221). The court denied dismissal of plaintiff's prospective injunctive relief claims against state defendants Hoerth and Saunders in their official capacities but dismissed all other parties and claims. (Docs. # 234, 235, 244 & 246). None of the court's orders called for an entry of judgment.
Plaintiff has since filed numerous motions, all of which the court has denied. On April 4, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion for default judgment, (doc. # 243), motion for a preliminary injunction, (doc. # 231), and cross-motion to compel, (doc. # 238). (Docs. # 247, 248, 249).
On August 25, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion in limine (doc. # 253), motion for 54(b) certification, (doc. # 266), motion for discovery or certification to file an interlocutory appeal, (doc. # 270), motion for torture rights, (doc. # 271), motion for judicial notice and a presumption in his favor, (doc. # 284), and motion to strike defendant's misuse of captions, (doc. # 274). (Docs. # 288, 289).
Plaintiff then filed the instant motion to reconsider, (doc. # 290), and motion to amend complaint, (doc. # 292). Defendants then filed the instant motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 296).
II. Legal Standard
A. Summary judgment