Dryden v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 14, 2023
• Docket: 2:16-cv-01227
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Bryan Dryden, Case No.: 2:16-cv-01227-JAD-EJY

4 Plaintiff Order Affirming Magistrate Judge’s Order 5 v. Denying Sanctions

6 State of Nevada, et al., [ECF Nos. 236, 240]

7 Defendants

8 This case involves allegations that Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) officer 9 Ted Nielson attacked Bryan Dryden while he was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison.1 10 After the attack, nurse Cindy Castillo treated Dryden and completed an “Unusual Occurrence 11 Report” to record details about the incident.2 Two versions of that report were produced in 12 discovery: one stated that Nielson “assaulted” Dryden, but the other did not.3 In light of that 13 discrepancy, the parties pointed the finger at each other and moved for spoliation sanctions, with 14 Dryden theorizing that an NDOC employee whited-out the reference to Nielson and Nielson 15 postulating that Dryden added the phrase when he had access to the medical records.4 After 16 hearing testimony from nine witnesses, the magistrate judge denied both motions, reasoning that 17 neither party proved its theory by a preponderance of the evidence.5 Nielson now appeals the 18 magistrate judge’s order.6 19

20 1 ECF No. 236 at 2. 21 2 Id. 3 Id. at 2–3. 22 4 Id. at 7. 23 5 Id. at 1, 8. 6 ECF No. 240 at 1. 1 A district judge may reconsider any non-dispositive matter that has been finally 2 determined by a magistrate judge “when it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is 3 clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”7 This standard of review “is significantly deferential” to a 4 magistrate judge’s determination.8 A district court may overturn a magistrate judge’s ruling 5 under this standard only if it has “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake [of fact] has been

6 committed”9 or a relevant statute, law, or rule has been omitted or misapplied.10 “A finding of 7 fact is clearly erroneous ‘if it is (1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences 8 that may be drawn from the facts in the record.’”11 The standard recognizes that “the factfinder 9 is in a better position to make judgments about the reliability of some forms of evidence than a 10 reviewing body acting solely on the basis of a written record of that evidence.”12 This is 11 especially true for live testimony, “for only the [factfinder] can be aware of the variations in 12 demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief in 13 what is said.”13 14 Applying these principles, I find that the magistrate judge did not clearly err in

15 determining that the evidence “does not sufficiently support the conclusion that [Dryden] altered 16 17

7 L.R. IB 3-1(a). 18 8 Concrete Pipe and Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 19 602, 623 (1993). 9 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 20 10 See Grimes v. City and Cnty. of S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 240–41 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 11 Red Lion Hotels Franchising, Inc. v. MAK, LLC, 663 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Seller Agency Council, Inc. v. Kennedy Ctr. for Real Estate Educ., Inc., 621 F.3d 981, 986 (9th 22 Cir. 2010)). 12 Concrete Pipe & Prod. of California, Inc., 508 U.S. at 623. 23 13 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). 1||the document.”'* Nielson chiefly argues that the magistrate judge “erred when she dismissed” handwriting expert Kathy Carlson’s “unrebutted” testimony that Dryden, and not Castillo, 3|| altered the document and corroborating evidence that the phrase at issue was added, not removed, from the document.!> But the magistrate judge found that Carlson’s testimony, while “credible,” was “not persuasive.”!© She was persuaded instead by the fact that Dryden was 6|| supervised when he had access to the report and that Castillo “could not and would not” testify as to “whether she wrote the words” at issue at the hearing and had twice before confirmed under 8]| oath that she wrote the phrase.'’ So the notion that Castillo (or someone else at NDOC) wrote 9} the phrase is not implausible. And I find that Carlson’s “unpersuasive” testimony that the 10]| handwriting was “closer” to Dryden’s'® is not enough to render the magistrate judge’s finding error. So I affirm the magistrate judge’s order. 12 Conclusion 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant’s objections [ECF No. 240] are 14], OVERRULED, and the order [ECF No. 236] is AFFIRMED. 15 And based on the order at ECF No. 244, dispositive motions must be filed by May 13, 16]| 2023. 17 J □□□ KAS Jess 18 US. sabes Jenifer) Dorsey April 14, 2023 19 20 || ECF No. 236 at 8. 'S ECF No. 240 at 3, 9.

° ECF No. 236 at 3 n.6. Id. at 4. '8 ECF No. 240 at 5.