2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 JASON A. MAHE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00536-MMD-CLB
5 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 6 DAVID RIVAS, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 On January 19, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff Jason Mahe’s Complaint in this 10 civil-rights action, allowing an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim to proceed 11 against Defendants Rivas and Parks. (ECF No. 5.) The Court denied Mahe’s incomplete 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) without prejudice to his ability to pay the 13 filing fee or file a new fully complete IFP application by March 20, 2023. (Id. at 12.) The 14 Court stayed this action for 90-days to allow the parties time to mediate their differences, 15 including under the Court’s Inmate Early Mediation Program. (Id. at 12–13.) And in a 16 subsequent order, the Court directed Interested Party Nevada Department of Corrections 17 (“NDOC”) to respond to Mahe’s emergency motions for a temporary restraining order and 18 a preliminary injunction (“PI/TRO”) by February 10, 2023. (ECF No. 7). 19 The parties have since moved for various relief. The NDOC timely filed its 20 response to the PI/TRO motions, and moves to seal Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E to its 21 response. (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16). Mahe moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order 22 setting a briefing schedule on his PI/TRO motions. (ECF Nos. 12, 24). He moves the 23 Court to construe his IFP application as complete. (ECF No. 11). He moves the Court to 24 order the NDOC to provide him a free copy of his entire medical file—or access to it for 25 four hours and free copies of pertinent records. (ECF No. 19). And Mahe moves the court 26 to extend his prison copy-work limit by $100. (ECF No. 21). The Court addresses each 27 motion in turn. 28 2 The NDOC moves to seal Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E filed with its response to 3 Mahe’s PI/TRO motions, arguing that compelling reasons exist to do so because the 4 documents are medical records or contain confidential information about Mahe’s medical 5 history, including physician’s notes and statements about his medical condition and 6 symptoms. (ECF No. 15 at 3). Having reviewed the documents in camera, the Court finds 7 that they contain sensitive and private information about Mahe’s health and medical care. 8 The Court finds Mahe’s interest in his medical privacy is a compelling reason to seal these 9 documents, and that reason outweighs the presumption favoring public access to them. 10 See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining 11 the good-cause and compelling-reason standards for sealing judicial records and 12 documents); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) 13 (applying the compelling-reasons standard to exhibits to an injunctive-relief motion that is 14 “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case”). Thus, the Court grants the 15 motion to seal. 16 II. MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NOS. 12, 24) 17 Nevada Local Rule LR 59-1(a) provides that reconsideration of an order that is not 18 case-dispositive may be appropriate if “the court has overlooked or misunderstood” any 19 point of law or fact. This means reconsideration is appropriate if the court “(1) is presented 20 with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 21 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 22 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). But a motion for reconsideration is 23 not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments that the court has already 24 ruled on. See Nev. Loc. R. LR 59-1(b). 25 Mahe moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order directing the NDOC to file a 26 response to his PI/TRO motions, arguing the Court should issue a TRO or hold a hearing 27 because Defendants changed his seizure medications to save costs, he is experiencing 28 seizures “almost daily,” and medical staff are retaliating against him. (ECF No. 12). 2 No. 24 at 2). Mahe also argues that the Utilization Review Committee approved his 3 request to receive his non-formulary seizure medications, but he hasn’t received them 4 because Defendant Rivas is “pulling rank and denying” Mahe’s requests either to save 5 costs or “discriminate against [Mahe] due to his physical and mental disabilities. (Id.) 6 Mahe also states that he has retained counsel—Thomas J. Gibson and Nye Legal—who 7 will appear telephonically if the Court holds a hearing on his motions. (Id.) And he argues 8 that a settlement agreement between the United States and the NDOC about housing 9 and medical care for inmates with HIV support his PI/TRO motions. (Id.) 10 The Court notes that no attorney has appeared for Mahe. In any event, Mahe’s 11 representation status and the settlement agreement concerning inmates with HIV are not 12 new evidence that is relevant to the PI/TRO motions, which seek an order requiring 13 Defendants to reinstate Mahe’s prescriptions for Lyrica, gabapentin, tramadol, and 14 baclofen. The other points raised by Mahe are not new, and the Court did not overlook 15 them when it entered its scheduling order. Moreover, the Court will consider all Mahe’s 16 points when it decides his PI/TRO motions. Because Mahe has not established a valid 17 reason why the Court should reconsider its scheduling order, the Court denies his motion 18 for that relief. 19 III. MOTION TO CONSIDER IFP APPLICATION COMPLETE (ECF NO. 11) 20 The Court denied Mahe’s IFP application because it was not on the Court’s 21 approved form and was based on outdated financial documents and information. (ECF 22 No. 5 at 1–2.) The Court gave Mahe until March 20, 2023, to either pay the required filing 23 fee or file a new fully complete IFP application. (Id. at 12). In response, Mahe moves the 24 Court to accept his IFP application as complete, arguing that he followed prison 25 regulations to obtain a financial certificate and six-month inmate trust fund account 26 statement from prison officials but has not received either document. (ECF No. 11 at 2). 27 Mahe states that he went “a step further” by asking Law Library Supervisor Simas to 28 resolve the issue and provide him indigent legal supplies. (Id.) But Simas responded that, 2 Banking Services has not returned his financial documents or responded to any inmate 3 request forms. (Id. at 2–3). Mahe also filed the first three pages of an IFP application on 4 the Court’s approved form, which he has completed. (ECF No. 13). 5 The Court construes this motion as seeking an extension of time and finds good 6 cause exists to grant Mahe a second extension of time to either pay the filing fee or file a 7 new fully complete IFP application containing all three of the required documents. Or, if 8 Mahe is having difficulty obtaining the required financial certificate and inmate account 9 statement for the previous six-month period from prison officials, he must file a declaration 10 detailing the efforts he took to obtain the financial documents from prison officials. If Mahe 11 chooses to file a declaration, it must detail when he requested the financial documents 12 from prison officials, who he conferred with about the status of the documents, when that 13 happened, who he followed up with after he did not receive the documents, when that 14 happened, and prison officials’ responses to his questions, if any. If Mahe’s declaration 15 demonstrates that he has done all that was possible to obtain the financial documents 16 from prison officials, the Court will consider his IFP application complete. 17 IV. MOTION TO ACCESS MEDICAL FILE (ECF NO. 19) 18 Mahe moves the Court to order the NDOC to provide him a free copy of his entire 19 medical file “to prevent known ‘purging’ of much needed medical proof” for when his case 20 goes to trial. (ECF No. 19 at 2).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 JASON A. MAHE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00536-MMD-CLB
5 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 6 DAVID RIVAS, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 On January 19, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff Jason Mahe’s Complaint in this 10 civil-rights action, allowing an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim to proceed 11 against Defendants Rivas and Parks. (ECF No. 5.) The Court denied Mahe’s incomplete 12 application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) without prejudice to his ability to pay the 13 filing fee or file a new fully complete IFP application by March 20, 2023. (Id. at 12.) The 14 Court stayed this action for 90-days to allow the parties time to mediate their differences, 15 including under the Court’s Inmate Early Mediation Program. (Id. at 12–13.) And in a 16 subsequent order, the Court directed Interested Party Nevada Department of Corrections 17 (“NDOC”) to respond to Mahe’s emergency motions for a temporary restraining order and 18 a preliminary injunction (“PI/TRO”) by February 10, 2023. (ECF No. 7). 19 The parties have since moved for various relief. The NDOC timely filed its 20 response to the PI/TRO motions, and moves to seal Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E to its 21 response. (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16). Mahe moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order 22 setting a briefing schedule on his PI/TRO motions. (ECF Nos. 12, 24). He moves the 23 Court to construe his IFP application as complete. (ECF No. 11). He moves the Court to 24 order the NDOC to provide him a free copy of his entire medical file—or access to it for 25 four hours and free copies of pertinent records. (ECF No. 19). And Mahe moves the court 26 to extend his prison copy-work limit by $100. (ECF No. 21). The Court addresses each 27 motion in turn. 28 2 The NDOC moves to seal Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E filed with its response to 3 Mahe’s PI/TRO motions, arguing that compelling reasons exist to do so because the 4 documents are medical records or contain confidential information about Mahe’s medical 5 history, including physician’s notes and statements about his medical condition and 6 symptoms. (ECF No. 15 at 3). Having reviewed the documents in camera, the Court finds 7 that they contain sensitive and private information about Mahe’s health and medical care. 8 The Court finds Mahe’s interest in his medical privacy is a compelling reason to seal these 9 documents, and that reason outweighs the presumption favoring public access to them. 10 See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining 11 the good-cause and compelling-reason standards for sealing judicial records and 12 documents); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) 13 (applying the compelling-reasons standard to exhibits to an injunctive-relief motion that is 14 “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case”). Thus, the Court grants the 15 motion to seal. 16 II. MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NOS. 12, 24) 17 Nevada Local Rule LR 59-1(a) provides that reconsideration of an order that is not 18 case-dispositive may be appropriate if “the court has overlooked or misunderstood” any 19 point of law or fact. This means reconsideration is appropriate if the court “(1) is presented 20 with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 21 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 22 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). But a motion for reconsideration is 23 not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments that the court has already 24 ruled on. See Nev. Loc. R. LR 59-1(b). 25 Mahe moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order directing the NDOC to file a 26 response to his PI/TRO motions, arguing the Court should issue a TRO or hold a hearing 27 because Defendants changed his seizure medications to save costs, he is experiencing 28 seizures “almost daily,” and medical staff are retaliating against him. (ECF No. 12). 2 No. 24 at 2). Mahe also argues that the Utilization Review Committee approved his 3 request to receive his non-formulary seizure medications, but he hasn’t received them 4 because Defendant Rivas is “pulling rank and denying” Mahe’s requests either to save 5 costs or “discriminate against [Mahe] due to his physical and mental disabilities. (Id.) 6 Mahe also states that he has retained counsel—Thomas J. Gibson and Nye Legal—who 7 will appear telephonically if the Court holds a hearing on his motions. (Id.) And he argues 8 that a settlement agreement between the United States and the NDOC about housing 9 and medical care for inmates with HIV support his PI/TRO motions. (Id.) 10 The Court notes that no attorney has appeared for Mahe. In any event, Mahe’s 11 representation status and the settlement agreement concerning inmates with HIV are not 12 new evidence that is relevant to the PI/TRO motions, which seek an order requiring 13 Defendants to reinstate Mahe’s prescriptions for Lyrica, gabapentin, tramadol, and 14 baclofen. The other points raised by Mahe are not new, and the Court did not overlook 15 them when it entered its scheduling order. Moreover, the Court will consider all Mahe’s 16 points when it decides his PI/TRO motions. Because Mahe has not established a valid 17 reason why the Court should reconsider its scheduling order, the Court denies his motion 18 for that relief. 19 III. MOTION TO CONSIDER IFP APPLICATION COMPLETE (ECF NO. 11) 20 The Court denied Mahe’s IFP application because it was not on the Court’s 21 approved form and was based on outdated financial documents and information. (ECF 22 No. 5 at 1–2.) The Court gave Mahe until March 20, 2023, to either pay the required filing 23 fee or file a new fully complete IFP application. (Id. at 12). In response, Mahe moves the 24 Court to accept his IFP application as complete, arguing that he followed prison 25 regulations to obtain a financial certificate and six-month inmate trust fund account 26 statement from prison officials but has not received either document. (ECF No. 11 at 2). 27 Mahe states that he went “a step further” by asking Law Library Supervisor Simas to 28 resolve the issue and provide him indigent legal supplies. (Id.) But Simas responded that, 2 Banking Services has not returned his financial documents or responded to any inmate 3 request forms. (Id. at 2–3). Mahe also filed the first three pages of an IFP application on 4 the Court’s approved form, which he has completed. (ECF No. 13). 5 The Court construes this motion as seeking an extension of time and finds good 6 cause exists to grant Mahe a second extension of time to either pay the filing fee or file a 7 new fully complete IFP application containing all three of the required documents. Or, if 8 Mahe is having difficulty obtaining the required financial certificate and inmate account 9 statement for the previous six-month period from prison officials, he must file a declaration 10 detailing the efforts he took to obtain the financial documents from prison officials. If Mahe 11 chooses to file a declaration, it must detail when he requested the financial documents 12 from prison officials, who he conferred with about the status of the documents, when that 13 happened, who he followed up with after he did not receive the documents, when that 14 happened, and prison officials’ responses to his questions, if any. If Mahe’s declaration 15 demonstrates that he has done all that was possible to obtain the financial documents 16 from prison officials, the Court will consider his IFP application complete. 17 IV. MOTION TO ACCESS MEDICAL FILE (ECF NO. 19) 18 Mahe moves the Court to order the NDOC to provide him a free copy of his entire 19 medical file “to prevent known ‘purging’ of much needed medical proof” for when his case 20 goes to trial. (ECF No. 19 at 2). Alternatively, Mahe asks for an order requiring the NDOC 21 to allow him up to four hours to review his file and copy his pertinent medical records, 22 including the prison’s internal notes under the NOTIS e-mailing system, X-rays, medical- 23 file notations, and kites. (Id.) NDOC administrative regulations state that inmates are 24 permitted to review their medical records once per calendar year except that, during 25 litigation involving an inmate’s medical issue, an inmate “will be allowed additional 26 opportunity to review the medical record. Upon a request from the offender to review his 27 medical records for litigation purposes, all efforts will be made to make the records 28 available within 3–5 working days from the date of the request.” NDOC AR 2 review his medical records but can request more time if it is needed, and the inmate is 3 permitted to take notes about the information contained in his medical record. Id. at 4 639.03(4)(A)(b)–(c). 5 Mahe does not state that he has followed the NDOC’s procedure to review and 6 take notes about the contents of his medical record. Moreover, as explained below, the 7 Court has stayed this action for 90 days to allow the parties an opportunity to mediate 8 their differences before the discovery process begins. And there are no pending motions 9 that require further briefing from any party. Mahe has not demonstrated he currently 10 needs a free copy of his entire medical file or even select portions of it. Nor has Mahe 11 demonstrated that he needs a court order to review and take notes about the contents of 12 his medical records. The Court therefore denies without prejudice Mahe’s motion for 13 access to his medical records. 14 V. MOTION TO EXTEND COPY WORK (ECF NO. 21) 15 Mahe’s final motion seeks to extend his copy-work limit by $100, arguing that he 16 needs to copy “hundreds of pages of documents[.]” (ECF No. 21 at 1). An inmate has no 17 constitutional right to free photocopying. Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 18 1991). NDOC administrative regulations state that “[i]nmates can only accrue a maximum 19 of $100 debt for copy work expenses for all cases, not per case.” NDOC AR 722.01(7)(D). 20 Courts in this district have found that they can order a prison to provide limited 21 photocopying when it is necessary for an inmate to provide copies to the court and other 22 parties. See Allen v. Clark Cnty. Det. Ctr., 2:10-CV-00857-RLH, 2011 WL 886343, *2 (D. 23 Nev. Mar. 11, 2011). 24 Mahe does not state the reason why he needs copies. It appears from the exhibits 25 attached to the motion that Mahe needs copies to file a reply in support of his PI/TRO 26 motions and an objection to the NDOC’s anticipated response to his motion seeking a 27 copy of his medical records. (Id. at 5–7). In staying this case to allow the parties an 28 opportunity to settle their differences, the Court ordered that no pleadings or papers 2 filed in violation of the stay unless specifically ordered by the Court to do so. (ECF No. 5 3 at 12–13.) Currently, the only exception to this stay is the Court’s order directing the 4 NDOC to respond to Mahe’s IP/TRO motions. Although the Court did not permit Mahe to 5 file a reply brief, he filed a reply brief together with 142 pages of exhibits. (Compare ECF 6 No. 7 (scheduling order), with ECF No. 18 (styled as a “rebuttal to A.G.’s motion to deny 7 T.R.O./Injunctive relief”), and ECF No. 20 (exhibits). The Court has not directed the 8 NDOC to respond to Mahe’s motion seeking a copy of his medical records. 9 Mahe has not demonstrated he needs to provide copies of any document to the 10 Court or the NDOC at this time. The Court therefore denies without prejudice Mahe’s 11 motion to extend his copy-work limit. 12 VI. CONCLUSION 13 It is therefore ordered that the Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal (ECF 14 No. 15) is granted. 15 It is further ordered that Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E to the Response to the PI/TRO 16 motions (ECF Nos. 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4, and 16-5) will remain under seal until further 17 order of the Court. 18 It is further ordered that the motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 12, 24) are 19 denied. 20 It is further ordered that the motion to consider the application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis complete (ECF No. 11) is construed as a motion for an extension of time and 22 granted in part and denied in part. 23 It is further ordered that on or before April 3, 2023, Plaintiff Mahe must either: 24 • Pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action; 25 • File a new fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three 26 required documents on the Court’s approved form; or 27 • Alternatively, if Plaintiff Mahe is not able to obtain his financial certificate and 28 inmate account statement from prison officials, complete and file a declaration 1 detailing the efforts that he undertook to obtain the required financial 2 documents from prison officials. 3 It is further ordered that the motion for access to medical records (ECF No. 19) is 4 || denied without prejudice. 5 It is further ordered that the motion to extend copy-work limit (ECF No. 21) is 6 || denied without prejudice. 7 DATED: March 3, 2023. 8 □□
10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28