Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cross v. Jaeger

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 22, 2017

ANTHONY CROSS, Plaintiff,
v.
RON JAEGER, Defendant.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. SUMMARY

         Following summary judgment proceedings, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed to trial on counts I, I-A, V, and V-A for First Amendment retaliation based on Defendant's handling of an emergency and refusal to provide Plaintiff with a copy of Disciplinary Form III in September 2011 while Plaintiff was housed at the Southern Desert Correctional Center (“SDCC”). (ECF No. 313 at 11-12; ECF No. 5 at 2-6 & 14-15.) Trial was scheduled for November 14, 2017, but has been continued to December 5, 2017, pursuant to the parties' stipulation. (ECF No. 474.) Motions in limine must be fully briefed and submitted for decision at least fifteen (15) days before trial or on November 20, 2017. (ECF No. 419 at 1.) This means that motions in limine must be filed by November 7, 2017, in light of the 14-day deadline to respond to motions established in LR 7-2(b). This deadline is set to allow the Court adequate time to consider motions that have been fully briefed before trial. However, Plaintiff has filed nine (9) motions after the deadline. Nevertheless, the Court will address these motions except for motions filed on or after November 20, 2017. For those motions, the deadline to respond is the day before trial. Accordingly, all motions filed on or after November 20, 2017 (ECF Nos. 488, 489, 490, 492) are denied, except for Plaintiff's emergency motion requesting that the Court direct NDOC to allow Plaintiff to interview and prepare witnesses (“Motion to Interview”) (ECF No. 487). The Court will address the Motion to Interview at calendar call set for November 27, 2017. Defendant may file a response to the Motion to Interview before then or address the issues raised in that motion during calendar call.

         II. DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS

         A. Motion for Plaintiff to Wear Restraints (ECF No. 464)

         In United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that in all criminal proceedings, “[b]efore a presumptively innocent defendant may be shackled, the court must make an individualized decision that a compelling government purpose would be served and that shackles are the least restrictive means for maintaining security and order in the courtroom.” United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 859 F.3d 649, 651 (9th Cir. 2017). The court observed that in cases where it has approved shackling, “there has been evidence of disruptive courtroom behavior, attempts to escape from custody, assaults or attempted assaults while in custody, or a pattern of defiant behavior toward corrections officials and judicial authorities.” Id. at 661 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). “Although criminal case precedents do not necessarily apply in a civil proceeding, [the Ninth Circuit has applied them where the court] finds them persuasive.” See Tyars v Finner, 709 F.2d 1274, 1285 (1983) (applying the standard for placing a criminal defendant in restraint to a state involuntary commitment hearing). The Court finds the Sanchez-Gomez standard should apply to civil cases such as this one where a prisoner asserts § 1983 claims. As the Sanchez-Gomez court explained, the right to be free from restraints is “not just about the defendant [;] [t]he right also maintains courtroom decorum and dignity.” Sanchez-Gomez, 859 F.3d at 662.

         Applying this standard here, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated that a compelling government purpose would be served and the proposed restraints are the least restrictive means for maintaining security and order in the courtroom. Defendant offers evidence of Plaintiff's criminal history-Plaintiff is serving sentences of life with the possibility of parole for first degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon, along with consecutive sentences for other violent offenses. (ECF No. 404 at 2.) Defendant offers evidence of Plaintiff's history of violence towards other inmates, his confrontations with NDOC staff, and his disciplinary history while in custody. (Id.) Defendant also points out that Plaintiff exhibited aggressive behavior towards counsel and the Court. (Id.) Plaintiff responded that where he disagreed with Court personnel, he has sought to “remove” himself from the situation. (ECF No. 486 at 3.) However, Plaintiff neglects to point out that those situations involved video or telephone hearings where he was set up to be in an isolated conference room. In fact, in such hearings before this Court, Plaintiff exhibited defiant behavior where he disagrees with the Court's rulings.

         For these reasons, Defendant's motion for Plaintiff to be placed in restraints (ECF No. 464) is granted. Plaintiff will be placed in leg shackles and will be required to wear an electronic stun belt (to be provided by NDOC). The Court will take other measures to ensure that Plaintiff's leg restraints are not visible to jurors during the trial. These measures include placement of Plaintiff at a different table during jury selection and placement of panels to cover the openings of counsel table during the trial.

         B. Motion to Seal (ECF No. 466)

         Defendant has offered compelling reasons to support its motion to seal. Defendant's motion to seal (ECF No. 466) is granted.

         III. PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS

         A. Motion Requesting Additional Exhibits (ECF No. 445)

         Plaintiff asks to include a copy of two cases as additional exhibits. (ECF No. 445 at 2.) These cases are not evidence in this case and will not be admitted as exhibits. Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 445) is denied.

         B. Motion to Take Judicial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.