Martin v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 23, 2025
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00365
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 WESLIE MARTIN, Case No. 3:21-cv-00365-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR 6 v. RECONSIDERATION

7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., [ECF No. 41]

8 Defendants.

9 INTRODUCTION 10 Plaintiff Denzel Martin (“Plaintiff”), Special Administrator for the Estate of 11 Weslie Martin (“Weslie”), through counsel, files a motion for reconsideration. 12 (ECF No. 41.) In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the 13 dismissal of the First Amendment retaliation claim in Claim 1 of the Second 14 Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant Wheeler 15 committed retaliation when he filed false notice of charges against Weslie 16 because Weslie verbally complained about not having access to adequate 17 showers. (Id.) Upon consideration, the Court agrees with Plaintiff and grants his 18 motion. 19 DISCUSSION 20 A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court 21 should reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly 22 convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. 23 United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is 24 appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, 25 (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if 26 there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands, 27 1 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not an 2 avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court 3 already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 4 (D. Nev. 2005). 5 Considering the motion, the response and reply, and reviewing the SAC, 6 the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 41.) In their 7 filings, the parties dispute whether Weslie’s verbal complaints to Wheeler about 8 having inadequate showers constitute protected conduct under the First 9 Amendment. (ECF No. 41 at 3–4; ECF No. 42 at 3–4.) However, the parties do 10 not cite applicable caselaw that definitively shows, one way or the other, whether 11 Weslie’s complaints do in fact constitute protected conduct. The Court also could 12 not find cases that would conclusively settle this issue, but the caselaw does 13 seem to imply that making verbal complaints in the prison context can be 14 protected conduct under the First Amendment. See Entler v. Gregoire, 872 F.3d 15 1031, 1039 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating that an inmate engages in protected First 16 Amendment conduct when he threatens to initiate litigation whether verbally or 17 written). 18 Therefore, the Court finds that for screening purposes, Weslie stated a 19 colorable First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Wheeler when 20 Wheeler filed false notice of charges against him for complaining about the prison 21 showers. The First Amendment retaliation claim in Claim 1 will proceed against 22 Defendant Wheeler. 23 Finally, Defendants argue in their response brief that Weslie did not state 24 a colorable retaliation claim because he could not “draw a causal link, or even a 25 reasonable inference, between those allegedly false notice of charges and any 26 protected conduct.” (ECF No. 42 at 4.) The Court disagrees with this analysis 27 and construes all allegations in the SAC in the light most favorable to Weslie and 1 || holds his allegations to a less stringent standard because it was drafted without 2 || the help of counsel. Warsaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 || Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to state a colorable retaliation claim at the 4 || screening stage. 5 || II. CONCLUSION 6 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 7 || 41) is granted. 8 It is further ordered that the First Amendment retaliation claim (Claim 1) 9 || against Defendant Wheeler will proceed. 10 It is further order that, under the screening order (ECF No. 13), the First 11 |} Amendment retaliation claim (Claim 2) will proceed against Defendant Reubart. 12 It is further ordered that the screening order (ECF No. 13) and scheduling 13 || order (ECF No. 38) remain in full force and effect. 14 DATED THIS 23rd day of April 2025. 15 16 17 Ars jlosed Jer 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28