Johnson v. Barrett

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMay 19, 2020
Docket2:17-cv-02304
StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. Barrett (Johnson v. Barrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. Barrett, (D. Nev. 2020).

Opinion

Attorney General 2 MATTHEW P. FEELEY (Bar No. 13336) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 555 East Washington Avenue Suite 3900 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 486-3120 (phone) 6 (702) 486-3773 (fax) Email: mfeeley@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 Regina Barrett, Christopher Harris, Julio Mesa, and Timothy Knatz 9

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14 LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, Case No. 2:17-cv-02304-RFB-BNW

15 Plaintiff,

16 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, 17 REGINA BARRETT, et al., A PERSON CONFINED IN PRISON

18 Defendants.

19 20 Defendants Regina Barrett, Christopher Harris, Julio Mesa, and Timothy Knatz, by 21 and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, and Matthew P. Feeley, 22 Deputy Attorney General, of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby 23 move for leave to depose Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson, a person confined in prison. 24 Defendants’ motion is made and based on Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25 and the following memorandum of points and authorities. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 I. BACKGROUND 3 This is a prisoner civil rights matter. Lausteveion Johnson (Plaintiff) is an inmate 4 lawfully incarcerated in the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and is currently 5 housed at Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC). On October 31, 2018, Plaintiff’s 6 Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Complaint) was filed against 7 various defendants alleging violations of Plaintiff’s First and Eighth Amendment rights. 8 ECF No. 5. 9 On October 31, 2018, This Court issued its Screening Order on Plaintiff’s Complaint 10 (ECF No. 5). ECF No. 4. This Court ordered: that a First Amendment interference with 11 free exercise of religion claim shall proceed against Defendant Mesa; a RLUIPA claim shall 12 proceed against Defendant Mesa; an Eighth Amendment claim of sexual assault shall 13 proceed against Defendants Gillmore and Barrett, and a First Amendment retaliation 14 claim shall proceed against Defendants Gillmore, Mesa, Barrett, Knatz, and Harris. ECF 15 No. 4 at 9:15-22. 16 On February 19, 2019, the Office of the Attorney general filed a Notice of Acceptance 17 of Service for Defendants Barrett, Harris, Mesa, and Knatz. Service was not accepted for 18 Defendant Gillmore. ECF No. 15 at 1:21-24. Defendant Gillmore was ultimately dismissed 19 from this action pursuant to Rule 4(m). ECF No. 52 20 On December 18, 2018, the Court issued its Scheduling Order. ECF No. 72. Pursuant 21 to the scheduling order, discovery is set to end on June 29, 2020. Id. Plaintiff is currently 22 housed at Southern Desert Correctional Center in Indian Springs, Nevada. 23 II. APPLICABLE LAW 24 A party must obtain leave of court if the deponent is confined in prison. See Fed. R. 25 Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B). The apparent purpose of the rule is to “prevent unnecessary disruption 26 of the administration of the penal institution.” Ashby v. McKenna, 331 F.3d 1148, 1150 27 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kendrick v. Schnorbus, 655 F.2d 727, 728 (6th Cir. 1981)). 28 /// 1 ARGUMENT 2 Defendants desire to take Plaintiff's deposition in this matter to prepare the case for 3 |}a dispositive motion or trial. Defendants dispute Plaintiff's factual allegations, and 4 || Plaintiff's deposition may be necessary to resolve one or more issues presented in the case. 5 || Further, Defendants are former or current prison employees, and defense counsel intends 6 work with prison administrators to schedule the deposition on a date and time that will 7 result in unnecessary or unavoidable disruption to prison operations. Therefore, the 8 || Court should grant Defendants leave to take Plaintiffs deposition 9 DATED this 15th day of May, 2020. 10 AARON D. FORD u Attorney General By:_/s/ Matthew P. Feeley 12 MATTHEW P. FEELEY (Bar. No. 13336) 13 IT IS SO ORDERED Deputy Attorney General

14 pegs 18 Ore Chetan her Harris DATED: May 18, 2020 Julio Mesa, and Timothy Knatz

16 17 Sx Lea Arba 18 BRENDA WEKSLER 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I certify that I am an employee of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, 2 and that on May 15, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 3 TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, A PERSON CONFINED IN PRISON 4 via this Court’s electronic filing system. Parties who are registered with this Court’s 5 electronic filing system will be served electronically. For those parties not registered, 6 service was made by emailing a copy at Las Vegas, Nevada, addressed to the following: 7

Lausteveion Johnson, #82138 8 Southern Desert Correctional Center P.O. Box 208 9 Indian Springs, Nevada 89070 Email: sdcclawlibrary@doc.nv.gov 10 Plaintiff, Pro Se

12 /s/ Carol A. Knight CAROL A. KNIGHT, an employee of the 13 Office of the Nevada Attorney General

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ashby v. McKenna
331 F.3d 1148 (Tenth Circuit, 2003)
Kendrick v. Schnorbus
655 F.2d 727 (Sixth Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnson v. Barrett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-barrett-nvd-2020.