3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 KATHERINE DEE FLETCHER, Case No. 2:22-cv-01777-MMD-NJK
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 DREESEN, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Katherine Dee Fletcher, who is incarcerated in the custody of the 13 Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) at Florence McClure Women’s Correctional 14 Center (“FMWCC”), asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that occurred 15 between September 12, 2022, and October 14, 2022, when she was placed in an isolation 16 cell for 33 days. (ECF No. 116.). Following screening of Plaintiff’s second amended 17 complaint (“SAC”), the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on four claims: (1) A First 18 Amendment free exercise of religion claim based on allegations she was placed in 19 isolation after she declined a medical injection based on her religion—Plaintiff is a 20 member of Jehovah’s Witnesses (claim 1); (2) an Eighth Amendment conditions-of- 21 confinement claim based on allegations Plaintiff was subjected to black mold and slippery 22 floors (claim 2); (3) a denial of access to the courts claim based on Plaintiff’s inability to 23 communicate with her attorney for her direct criminal appeal (claim 4); and (4) a deliberate 24 indifference to serious medical needs claim based on exposure to black mold 25 exacerbating Plaintiff’s preexisting health issues and causing other health issues (claim 26 5). (ECF No. 127.) In response, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that they 27 are entitled to qualified immunity on all four claims and that Plaintiff’s fourth claim, for 28 denial of access to the courts, is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 2 2025. (ECF Nos. 175, 180.) Cabined between the Court’s orders clarifying the response 3 deadline, Plaintiff filed other motions seeking numerous forms of miscellaneous relief. For 4 purposes of judicial economy and in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will address 5 these pending motions and grant a final extension of the deadline for Plaintiff to respond 6 to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 A. “Omnibus Motion” (ECF No. 168) 9 The Omnibus Motion asks for seven separate types of relief, though some are 10 related. Plaintiff requests the following: 11 (A) “[P]roduction of her entire client file being withheld by Jeremy Baron.” 12 (B) “[A] stay of the tolling of time in which to file opposition to the AG’s motion to 13 dismiss currently due on 11/26/2024.” 14 (C) “[A] time extension in which to file the opposition to motion to dismiss upon 15 production of my entire client file.” 16 (D) “[R]ecord inspection due to the altered & falsified documents being pushed 17 thru[sic] NDOC’s chain of custody which handles my federal court 18 documents.” 19 (E) “[To] remove adverse NDOC untrust-worthy representation listed for purpose 20 of handling my court documents per points raised in previous section D) . . .” 21 (F) “[An] order to this representative’s captors to accommodate this esquire with 22 access to the internet for legal purposes . . . .” 23 (G) “[T]o disqualify Aaron Ford & His Office from acting in this case . . . .” 24 (H) “[An] order of protection from the AG’s office for reasons of section G) above, 25 & for order of protection from Nancy Koppe for her participation in such 26 crime.” 27 (ECF No. 168 (emphasis omitted).) 28 /// 2 LR IC 2-2(b) provides: “For each type of relief requested or purpose of the document, a 3 separate document must be filed and a separate event must be selected for that 4 document.” Here, the Omnibus Motion asks for seven separate forms of relief. Even if the 5 Court groups the related requests, the motion still contains multiple separate unrelated 6 requests. For example, the requests to stay or extend the deadline to respond to 7 Defendants’ motion to dismiss are unrelated to the requests relating to the Nevada 8 Attorney General’s Office’s representation of Defendants in this case. The Court thus 9 denies the Omnibus Motion as procedurally improper under LR IC 2-2(b). 10 Even if the Court were to consider the Omnibus Motion on the merits, the Court 11 must deny the motion. On the merits, only the requests to stay and to extend the deadline 12 to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss (requests (B) & (C)) fall within the Court’s 13 authority to consider. But after the Omnibus Motion was filed, the Court extended the 14 response deadline to January 2, 2025, so the request for extension of the November 26, 15 2024, deadline (request (C)) is moot. (ECF No. 175.)1 Moreover, the reasons Plaintiff 16 identifies for her requests—mainly the need for her file from her attorney Jeremy Baron— 17 do not serve as a sufficient basis for a stay. It is not clear why Plaintiff needs information 18 her attorney’s file, presumably related to her state court cases, to respond to Defendants’ 19 motion to dismiss. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request to stay, but for purposes of clarity 20 and given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will extend the deadline for Plaintiff to respond 21 to the motion to dismiss. 22 The other requests in the Omnibus Motion are unrelated to the underlying claims 23 and are not within the Court’s authority to grant. For example, the Court has no jurisdiction 24 over Plaintiff’s state court cases and cannot compel her attorney in those cases to 25 produce her file as articulate in request (A). Moreover, the Court does not have authority 26 to direct NDOC to provide internet access to Plaintiff or to disqualify the Nevada Attorney 27 1Plaintiff later separately moved for an extension of the deadline to respond to 28 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 176.) The Court denied that motion as moot and reminded Plaintiff of the January 2, 2025, deadline. (ECF No. 180.) 2 As for Plaintiff’s request for a protective order from Judge Koppe, the request is 3 frivolous—but the Court addresses it mainly because of the unfounded allegation as to 4 alleged participation in some unknown crime. Judge Koppe is the Magistrate Judge who 5 presides over this case. While Plaintiff may not agree and indeed is not required to agree 6 with Judge Koppe’s rulings, Plaintiff’s recourse is to object or appeal her rulings. 7 In sum, the Court denies the Omnibus Motion. 8 B. “Constructive Move” Motion (ECF No. 177) 9 Plaintiff filed a document titled “Constructive Move” where she appears to ask the 10 Court to construe the “Omnibus Motion” in a certain manner, presumably to allow the 11 case to proceed. (ECF No. 177 at 1.) The Court notes, however, that it is not clear what 12 Plaintiff is specifically requesting here. She asks for the Omnibus Motion to be construed 13 “as an incomplete joint motion (per FRCP 12(b) deal’g w/insufficient process matters & 14 12(g)(1) allow’g joint motion) in which judgment on the merits & waiving limitations of 15 12(g)(2) are needed, in that once Omnibus Motion issues have been settled, that will 16 allow this Representative to move forward appropriately w/access to the courts via FRCP 17 12 motions kept available & not limited.” (Id.) Regardless of how Plaintiff intends for the 18 Court to construe the Omnibus Motion, the Court’s resolution of the Omnibus Motion 19 renders the Constructive Move request moot. 20 C. Update Re: Relief Requested (ECF No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 KATHERINE DEE FLETCHER, Case No. 2:22-cv-01777-MMD-NJK
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 DREESEN, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Katherine Dee Fletcher, who is incarcerated in the custody of the 13 Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) at Florence McClure Women’s Correctional 14 Center (“FMWCC”), asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that occurred 15 between September 12, 2022, and October 14, 2022, when she was placed in an isolation 16 cell for 33 days. (ECF No. 116.). Following screening of Plaintiff’s second amended 17 complaint (“SAC”), the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on four claims: (1) A First 18 Amendment free exercise of religion claim based on allegations she was placed in 19 isolation after she declined a medical injection based on her religion—Plaintiff is a 20 member of Jehovah’s Witnesses (claim 1); (2) an Eighth Amendment conditions-of- 21 confinement claim based on allegations Plaintiff was subjected to black mold and slippery 22 floors (claim 2); (3) a denial of access to the courts claim based on Plaintiff’s inability to 23 communicate with her attorney for her direct criminal appeal (claim 4); and (4) a deliberate 24 indifference to serious medical needs claim based on exposure to black mold 25 exacerbating Plaintiff’s preexisting health issues and causing other health issues (claim 26 5). (ECF No. 127.) In response, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that they 27 are entitled to qualified immunity on all four claims and that Plaintiff’s fourth claim, for 28 denial of access to the courts, is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 2 2025. (ECF Nos. 175, 180.) Cabined between the Court’s orders clarifying the response 3 deadline, Plaintiff filed other motions seeking numerous forms of miscellaneous relief. For 4 purposes of judicial economy and in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will address 5 these pending motions and grant a final extension of the deadline for Plaintiff to respond 6 to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 A. “Omnibus Motion” (ECF No. 168) 9 The Omnibus Motion asks for seven separate types of relief, though some are 10 related. Plaintiff requests the following: 11 (A) “[P]roduction of her entire client file being withheld by Jeremy Baron.” 12 (B) “[A] stay of the tolling of time in which to file opposition to the AG’s motion to 13 dismiss currently due on 11/26/2024.” 14 (C) “[A] time extension in which to file the opposition to motion to dismiss upon 15 production of my entire client file.” 16 (D) “[R]ecord inspection due to the altered & falsified documents being pushed 17 thru[sic] NDOC’s chain of custody which handles my federal court 18 documents.” 19 (E) “[To] remove adverse NDOC untrust-worthy representation listed for purpose 20 of handling my court documents per points raised in previous section D) . . .” 21 (F) “[An] order to this representative’s captors to accommodate this esquire with 22 access to the internet for legal purposes . . . .” 23 (G) “[T]o disqualify Aaron Ford & His Office from acting in this case . . . .” 24 (H) “[An] order of protection from the AG’s office for reasons of section G) above, 25 & for order of protection from Nancy Koppe for her participation in such 26 crime.” 27 (ECF No. 168 (emphasis omitted).) 28 /// 2 LR IC 2-2(b) provides: “For each type of relief requested or purpose of the document, a 3 separate document must be filed and a separate event must be selected for that 4 document.” Here, the Omnibus Motion asks for seven separate forms of relief. Even if the 5 Court groups the related requests, the motion still contains multiple separate unrelated 6 requests. For example, the requests to stay or extend the deadline to respond to 7 Defendants’ motion to dismiss are unrelated to the requests relating to the Nevada 8 Attorney General’s Office’s representation of Defendants in this case. The Court thus 9 denies the Omnibus Motion as procedurally improper under LR IC 2-2(b). 10 Even if the Court were to consider the Omnibus Motion on the merits, the Court 11 must deny the motion. On the merits, only the requests to stay and to extend the deadline 12 to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss (requests (B) & (C)) fall within the Court’s 13 authority to consider. But after the Omnibus Motion was filed, the Court extended the 14 response deadline to January 2, 2025, so the request for extension of the November 26, 15 2024, deadline (request (C)) is moot. (ECF No. 175.)1 Moreover, the reasons Plaintiff 16 identifies for her requests—mainly the need for her file from her attorney Jeremy Baron— 17 do not serve as a sufficient basis for a stay. It is not clear why Plaintiff needs information 18 her attorney’s file, presumably related to her state court cases, to respond to Defendants’ 19 motion to dismiss. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request to stay, but for purposes of clarity 20 and given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will extend the deadline for Plaintiff to respond 21 to the motion to dismiss. 22 The other requests in the Omnibus Motion are unrelated to the underlying claims 23 and are not within the Court’s authority to grant. For example, the Court has no jurisdiction 24 over Plaintiff’s state court cases and cannot compel her attorney in those cases to 25 produce her file as articulate in request (A). Moreover, the Court does not have authority 26 to direct NDOC to provide internet access to Plaintiff or to disqualify the Nevada Attorney 27 1Plaintiff later separately moved for an extension of the deadline to respond to 28 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 176.) The Court denied that motion as moot and reminded Plaintiff of the January 2, 2025, deadline. (ECF No. 180.) 2 As for Plaintiff’s request for a protective order from Judge Koppe, the request is 3 frivolous—but the Court addresses it mainly because of the unfounded allegation as to 4 alleged participation in some unknown crime. Judge Koppe is the Magistrate Judge who 5 presides over this case. While Plaintiff may not agree and indeed is not required to agree 6 with Judge Koppe’s rulings, Plaintiff’s recourse is to object or appeal her rulings. 7 In sum, the Court denies the Omnibus Motion. 8 B. “Constructive Move” Motion (ECF No. 177) 9 Plaintiff filed a document titled “Constructive Move” where she appears to ask the 10 Court to construe the “Omnibus Motion” in a certain manner, presumably to allow the 11 case to proceed. (ECF No. 177 at 1.) The Court notes, however, that it is not clear what 12 Plaintiff is specifically requesting here. She asks for the Omnibus Motion to be construed 13 “as an incomplete joint motion (per FRCP 12(b) deal’g w/insufficient process matters & 14 12(g)(1) allow’g joint motion) in which judgment on the merits & waiving limitations of 15 12(g)(2) are needed, in that once Omnibus Motion issues have been settled, that will 16 allow this Representative to move forward appropriately w/access to the courts via FRCP 17 12 motions kept available & not limited.” (Id.) Regardless of how Plaintiff intends for the 18 Court to construe the Omnibus Motion, the Court’s resolution of the Omnibus Motion 19 renders the Constructive Move request moot. 20 C. Update Re: Relief Requested (ECF No. 193 (“Motion for Relief”)2) 21 As best as the Court can discern, the Motion for Relief explains how Plaintiff has 22 continued to suffer harm arising from the claims in this case as well as other alleged 23 conduct.3 For example, Plaintiff writes that her “lung damage from the mold mixed with 24 the heart damage from mal-treated anemia/my cardio pulmonary problems became so 25 2Plaintiff subsequently filed “Amendment to Docket 193” to assert that she must 26 “reassess the monetary relief requested by [193]” due to an alleged ongoing “pattern of illegal activity.” (ECF No. 202 at 1.) 27 3Plaintiff also references allegations that are not related to the claims in this case, 28 including that Jesus Chris saved her life on September 6, 2024, when “they hid [her] away to die”; retaliation by the “SNWCC subset of a Child Sex Crimes & Rape Syndicate”; and 1 || severe | often could not walk to the cafeteria at much more than a snails pace. .. .” (ECF 2 || No. 193 at 1.) The Court denies the Motion for Relief to the extent Plaintiff asks for 3 || remedies outside the scope of her claims. To the extent Plaintiff is trying to identify harm 4 || suffered in connection with the claims in this suit, Plaintiff need not present her alleged 5 || damages in a motion. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to any damages will be determined by 6 || a jury, assuming the Court does not resolve the claims in Defendants’ favor as a matter 7 || of law. 8 || Ill. CONCLUSION 9 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's Omnibus Motion (ECF No. 168) is denied. But 10 || the Court grants an extension of time to March 18, 2025, for Plaintiff to file a response to 11 || Defendants’ motion to dismiss. No further extension of this deadline will be granted. 12 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Constructive Move motion (ECF No. 177) and 13 || Motion for Relief (ECF No. 193) are denied. 14 DATED THIS 18" Day of February 2025. 15
17 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28