United States District Court, D. Nevada
GEORGE L. VONTRESS Plaintiff,
STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants.
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are the following motions: Plaintiff's Request
for Judicial Clarification (ECF No. 38); Plaintiff's
Motion Requesting Emergency Preliminary Injunction /
Temporary Restraining Order (ECF Nos. 64, 65);
Plaintiff's Motion to Request to File Exhibit-A Under
Seal (ECF No. 66); Plaintiff's Renewed Request for
Emergency Hearing Re: Preliminary Injunction / T.R.O. (ECF
No. 76); Plaintiff's Motion to Declare Dire Urgency and
Necessity for Emergency Hearing; Preliminary Injunction /
T.R.O (ECF Nos. 83, 84); Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
or, Alternatively, Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 85);
Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution
of Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 86); Plaintiff's Motion
Requesting Immediate Transfer Back to Nevada, For Good Cause
(ECF No. 89); Plaintiff's Motion to Request Sanctions be
Imposed (ECF No. 91); and Plaintiff's Request for Leave
to File Judicial Notice on Reverse Side of Facility Forms,
Due to Placement in Segregation and Confiscation and Refusal
to Return Necessary Legal Materials, Files and Records (ECF
CoreCivic, Fuller, Hininger, Marr, Thomas, and Williams
(“CoreCivic Defendants”) move the Court to
dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Because the question of personal
jurisdiction “goes to the court's power to exercise
control over the parties, ” the Court will resolve this
issue before reaching considerations of venue, failure to
state a claim, and Plaintiffs' requests for preliminary
injunctive relief. Leroy v. Great W. United Corp.,
443 U.S. 173, 180 (1979).
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal
jurisdiction. Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
433 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir. 2006). When, as here, the Court
resolves the motion to dismiss based only on written
submissions, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of
facts that would support personal jurisdiction. Id.
That is, Plaintiffs “need only demonstrate facts that
if true would support jurisdiction.” Ballard v. Savage,
65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir.1995).
establish that personal jurisdiction over a defendant is
proper, a plaintiff must show (1) that the forum state's
long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction and (2) that
the exercise of jurisdiction comports with the constitutional
principles of due process. Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio
Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir.2002).
Because Nev. Rev. Stat. section 14.065 permits Nevada courts
to exercise jurisdiction to the same extent as the
Constitution, this Court need only consider the
constitutional principles of due process. Walden v.
Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121 (2014).
entity, a court may exercise general personal jurisdiction in
a state where the entity is incorporated or has its principal
place of business. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S.
117, 138- 39 (2014). Over an individual, a court may exercise
general personal jurisdiction in a state where the person is
domiciled. Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 462-64
(1940). CoreCivic represents that it is not incorporated in
Nevada, that its principal place of business is not located
in Nevada, and that none of the individual CoreCivic
Defendants reside in Nevada.
personal jurisdiction is analyzed pursuant to the following
(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his
activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or
resident thereof; or perform some act by which he
purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting
activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws;
(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to
the defendant's forum-related activities; and
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play
and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d
797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004).
it is undisputed that the Nevada Department of Corrections
contracts with CoreCivic to detain inmates, including
Plaintiff, at Saguaro Correctional Center, the Court does not
currently have this contract on record. The Court requires a
copy of this contract to undergo its jurisdictional analysis.
IT IS ORDERED that, by June 24, 2019,
CoreCivic file with the Court (1) a copy of its contract
governing the detention of Nevada Department of Corrections
inmates and (2) any bid submitted to obtain the contract or
any proposal submitted to expand existing services to include
the contracted services.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to
Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 86) is GRANTED. With the exception of the jurisdictional
discovery ordered by this Court, discovery in this case is
stayed until the Court issues an order deciding