Truman v. Moore

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided June 9, 2025·No. 3:22-cv-00548·Unknown

Opinion

1 || AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 |} DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 Senior Deputy Attorney General 3 || State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street 4 || Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1150 5 || E-mail: drands@ag.nv.gov 6 || Attorneys for Defendants Darrion Houston; Matthew Leong; Thurston Moore; and Curtis Rigney 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 || CURTIS TRUMAN, Case No. 3:22-cv-00548-MMD-CLB 11 Plaintiff, 12 || vs. JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER 13 || THURISTON MOORE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Following pretrial proceedings in this case, 17 IT IS ORDERED: 18 I. NATURE OF ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 19 A. NATURE OF ACTION 20 Curtis Truman (Truman) is an inmate incarcerated in the Nevada Department of 21 || Corrections (NDOC). Truman filed a Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 22 || 1983 (ECF No. 5) for events that allegedly occurred while he was housed at High 23 || Desert State Prison (HDSP) in May, 2022. (Cd. at 3). Truman alleges he was beaten 24 || while in leg shackles and handcuffed behind his back. In its Screening Order (ECF No. 25 || 4), this Court ordered that Truman could proceed on his Eighth Amendment failure to 26 || protect claim to proceed against Defendants Moore, Houston and Leong, and the 27 || Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendant Rigney. (/d. at 9). 28 |i

1 This Court granted summary judgment to the Defendant, Rigney, and denied 2 || the motion as to the Eighth Amendment claim. (ECF No. 73) Therefore, this matter is 3 || proceeding on Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment, 4 || excessive force claim. 5 B. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 6 1. Plaintiffs Contentions 7 Truman alleges that on May 20, 2022, Defendants Sgt. Moore, C/O Houston, and 8 || C/O Leong escorted Truman from his unit to “operations” at HDSP. (ECF No. 5 at 3-4.) 9 || During the escort, Truman’s hands were cuffed behind his back, and his legs were 10 || shackled. (Id. at 3.) At some point, Truman alleges these Defendants said there were no 11 || cameras, and they would “whoop [Truman’s] ass.” fd.) Defendants then allegedly lifted 12 || Truman off the ground and threw him down “face first.” (Id.) They allegedly proceeded 13 || to kick Truman’s “side” and ribs, knocking the wind out of him. (Id.) Truman claims 14 || they also punched his “head and face,” splitting his lip and leaving bruises. (Id. at 3-4.) 15 When the escort arrived at “operations,” Defendants again allegedly slammed 16 || Truman onto the ground. (ECF No. 5 at 4.) This time, Truman’s face hit a metal bunk. 17 || dd.) As Truman lay on the ground, he claims one of these three Defendants placed a 18 || knee on his back while the others punched and kicked him. (/d.) Throughout the escort, 19 || Truman claims he was “never once . . aggressive,” nor did he put up any resistance. 20 || Ud.) 21 2. Defendants’ Contentions 22 Defendants contend that the evidence does not support Plaintiffs allegations. 23 || Defendants incorporate any Affirmative Defenses from the Answer as it pertains to 24 || Defendants. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs constitutional rights have been violated. 25 C. RELIEF SOUGHT 26 Plaintiff seeks compensatory, general and punitive damages. 27 || Mi 28

1 ||Il. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 2 This is a civil action commenced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has 3 || jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 4 || 111. UNCONTESTED FACTS ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES WHICH REQUIRE NO PROOF

6 NONE. 7 |1V. FACTS UNADMITTED THAT WILL NOT BE CONTESTED 8 The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by 9 || evidence to the contrary: NONE. 10 CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED u UPON TRIAL

12 A. PLAINTIFF'S CONTESTED FACTS 13 1. Whether Defendants followed use of force procedures or prison 14 || policy. 15 2. Whether Defendants held back evidence from Plaintiff in bad faith 16 || to cover up their wrongdoing and keep Plaintiff at a disadvantage. 3. S€e Cam □□□□ 17 B. DEFENDANTS’ CONTESTED FACTS 18 1. Whether Plaintiff has met his burden of producing evidence 19 ||supporting the facts set forth above, i.e. whether he can prove that the individual 20 || defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights? 21 2. Whether any form of damages is available to Plaintiff for any 22 || alleged failures? 23 3. Truman, in this matter, has filed a Complaint alleging violations of 24 || his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. (ECF No. 5). 25 4. On or about May 20, 2022, Truman was involved in an incident at 26 || HDSP. (See ECF No. 43-1.) 27 5. Truman was observed with an open flame in the unit. Truman was 28 || approached by Sgt. Moore and told to keep his hands on the wall. (ECF No. 43-1)

1 6. Truman immediately attempted to retrieve something from his waist. 2 || dd.). 3 7. Truman was taken to the ground with the assistance of Defendant 4 || Houston. 5 8. Defendant Leong was attacked by another inmate as he approached 6 || Truman and the other officers. (ECF No. 43-7). Defendant Leong had no contact with 7 || Truman during the fight. (d.) 8 9. Truman was charged and found guilty of assault, on 3/31/15, and he 9 || was given 9 months in Disciplinary Segregation. (ECF 43-4) 10 10. Truman was transferred to LCC on April 2, 2015. 11 || VI. CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED UPON TRIAL

13 A. PLAINTIFF 14 1. Whether or not the claim against Defendants violates Plaintiffs 15 || Constitutional rights, and do the facts warrant a damage award? 16 B. DEFENDANT 17 1. Did Defendant individually violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights? 18 2. Did Mr. Truman prove the elements of a violation of his Eighth 19 || Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by 20 || the defendant. Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir.1979). “A plaintiff must 21 || allege facts, not simply conclusions, t[o] show that [each defendant] was personally 22 || involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 23 || 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Estate of Brooks ex rel. Brooks v. United States, 197 F.3d 24 || 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Causation is, of course, a required element of a § 1983 25 || claim.”). 26 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of 27 || the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 28 || suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible

1 || claim for relief [is]...a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on 2 its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or 3 || “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting 4 || this plausibility standard. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 5 || 9th Cir. 2009). 6 In Nevada, “punitive damages may be awarded when the plaintiff proves 7 || by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is ‘guilty of oppression[;] fraud[;] 8 || or malice, express or implied.” Peters v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, No. 9 || 2:19-cv-00874-GMN-EJY, 2023 WL 375985 at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2023) (citation 10 || omitted). “The standard for punitive damages under §1983 mirrors the standard for 11 || punitive damages under common law tort cases....

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

Truman v. Moore, (D. Nev. 2025).

Truman v. Moore (Truman v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related