United States District Court, D. Nevada
HAROLD D. HARDEN, Plaintiff,
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge.
before the court is pro se Plaintiff Harold D. Harden's
motion for order to show cause (ECF No. 26), filed on October
20, 2016. Defendant Venus Fajota filed a response (ECF No.
27) on November 3, 2016. Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 29)
on November 7, 2016. Plaintiff filed a supplemental reply
(ECF No. 31) on November 16, 2016.
before the court is Plaintiff's objection regarding
acceptance of service (ECF No. 30), filed on November 21,
2016. Defendant did not file a response.
before the court are Plaintiff's motions for a scheduling
order (ECF Nos. 32, 41), filed on November 28, 2016, and
February 21, 2017, respectively. Defendant did not file
before the court is Plaintiff's objection and reply to
Defendant's answer (ECF No. 34), filed on January 12,
2017. Defendant filed a countermotion to strike (ECF No. 36)
on January 25, 2017. Plaintiff filed a response (ECF Nos. 37,
39) on February 3 and February 8, 2017, respectively.
Defendant did not file a reply.
before the court is Plaintiff's motion for a contempt
order (ECF No. 35), filed on January 23, 2017. Defendant
filed a response (ECF No. 38) on February 7, 2017. Plaintiff
filed a reply (ECF No. 40) on February 13, 2017.
parties are familiar with the facts of this case, and the
court will repeat them here only as necessary. This
civil-rights action arises out of a dispute regarding the
Nevada Department of Corrections' accounting staff's
handling of funds in Plaintiff's inmate account.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges accounting staff stole the
$20.00 monthly gift from Plaintiff's disabled mother
because they repeatedly withdrew this money for a
disciplinary sanction and medical fees although those fees
already had been paid. (Am. Compl. (ECF No. 17) at 4.)
Plaintiff further alleges that money for legal fire boxes and
telephone time was improperly deducted from his account.
(Id.) After screening, the only remaining claim is
Plaintiff's due process claim against Defendant Venus
Fajota. (Screening Order (ECF No. 20) at 6.)
parties participated in an Inmate Early Mediation conference
with a court-appointed mediator but were unable to reach a
settlement. (Mins. of Proceedings (ECF No. 23).) Following
the mediation, the court ordered the Attorney General's
Office to advise the court and Plaintiff of the names of the
defendants for whom it would accept service. (Order (ECF No.
25).) The Attorney General's Office subsequently filed a
notice stating it accepted service for Defendant Fajota.
(Notice of Acceptance of Service (ECF No. 28).) Plaintiff now
files various motions seeking contempt sanctions related to
the mediation, Rule 11 sanctions, and assistance with other
issues. Defendant moves to strike one of Plaintiff's
MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 26)
requests that the court impose contempt sanctions on all
other parties who participated in the mediation, arguing that
the defense representatives who attended did not have full
settlement authority and were not authorized to hear the
sensitive issues discussed at the mediation. Plaintiff argues
this put him at a disadvantage during the mediation and was
in violation of the court's order setting the mediation.
In addition to contempt sanctions, Plaintiff requests that
the mediation be rescheduled, that the deputy attorney
general assigned to this case be removed, and that he be
awarded attorney's fees and costs related to the
responds that all necessary and proper people attended the
mediation, including an individual with full monetary
settlement authority. Specifically, Defendant represents that
the mediation was attended by Theresa M. Haar,
Defendant's attorney; Warden Gentry and Associate Warden
Howell as representatives on behalf of the Nevada Department
of Corrections; and Ann McDermott, on behalf of Nancy
Katafias, the State Tort Claims Manager with monetary
settlement authority. (Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for OSC
(ECF No. 27) at 2.)
replies that Defendant's opposition should be stricken
because it does not contain legal argument or authority. He
further replies that Warden Gentry did not attend, that Jeff
Miller attended, and that Ann McDermott stated that she was a
representative of the insurance company but that she was not
authorized to make decisions about the case. Finally, he
replies that the mediator stated that Defendant's
representatives were not authorized to provide
Plaintiff's settlement terms.
court's order setting the mediation required the
following individuals to attend the mediation on behalf of
Defendant: Defendant's attorney, a representative for the
Nevada Department of Corrections, and a representative with
full monetary settlement authority. (Order (ECF No. 22) at
2.) The parties were advised that the court may impose
sanctions if a necessary party or representative failed to
attend the mediation. (Id.) Additionally, the
parties were advised that the court ...