AARON D. FORD Attorney General } DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 Senior Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1150 E-mail: drands@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants Darrion Houston; Matthew Leong; Thurston Moore; and Curtis Rigney CURTIS TRUMAN, Case No. 3:22-cv-00548-MMD-CLB Plaintiff, vs. JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER THURISTON MOORE, et al., Defendants. Following pretrial proceedings in this case, IT IS ORDERED: I. NATURE OF ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES Curtis Truman (Truman) is an inmate incarcerated in the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). Truman filed a Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 5) for events that allegedly occurred while he was housed at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) in May, 2022. (Cd. at 3). Truman alleges he was beaten while in leg shackles and handcuffed behind his back. In its Screening Order (ECF No. 4), this Court ordered that Truman could proceed on his Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim to proceed against Defendants Moore, Houston and Leong, and the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendant Rigney. (/d. at 9). 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, excessive force claim. 1. Plaintiffs Contentions Truman alleges that on May 20, 2022, Defendants Sgt. Moore, C/O Houston, and C/O Leong escorted Truman from his unit to “operations” at HDSP. (ECF No. 5 at 3-4.) During the escort, Truman’s hands were cuffed behind his back, and his legs were shackled. (Id. at 3.) At some point, Truman alleges these Defendants said there were no cameras, and they would “whoop [Truman’s] ass.” fd.) Defendants then allegedly lifted Truman off the ground and threw him down “face first.” (Id.) They allegedly proceeded to kick Truman’s “side” and ribs, knocking the wind out of him. (Id.) Truman claims they also punched his “head and face,” splitting his lip and leaving bruises. (Id. at 3-4.) When the escort arrived at “operations,” Defendants again allegedly slammed Truman onto the ground. (ECF No. 5 at 4.) This time, Truman’s face hit a metal bunk. dd.) As Truman lay on the ground, he claims one of these three Defendants placed a knee on his back while the others punched and kicked him. (/d.) Throughout the escort, Truman claims he was “never once . . aggressive,” nor did he put up any resistance. Ud.) 2. Defendants’ Contentions Defendants contend that the evidence does not support Plaintiffs allegations. Defendants incorporate any Affirmative Defenses from the Answer as it pertains to Defendants. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs constitutional rights have been violated. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, general and punitive damages. Mi
1 Il. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This is a civil action commenced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 111. UNCONTESTED FACTS ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES WHICH REQUIRE NO PROOF
1V. FACTS UNADMITTED THAT WILL NOT BE CONTESTED The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to the contrary: NONE. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED u UPON TRIAL
1. Whether Defendants followed use of force procedures or prison policy. 2. Whether Defendants held back evidence from Plaintiff in bad faith to cover up their wrongdoing and keep Plaintiff at a disadvantage. 3. S€e Cam □□□□ 1. Whether Plaintiff has met his burden of producing evidence supporting the facts set forth above, i.e. whether he can prove that the individual defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights? 2. Whether any form of damages is available to Plaintiff for any alleged failures? 3. Truman, in this matter, has filed a Complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. (ECF No. 5). 4. On or about May 20, 2022, Truman was involved in an incident at HDSP. (See ECF No. 43-1.) 5. Truman was observed with an open flame in the unit. Truman was 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 Houston. 5 8. Defendant Leong was attacked by another inmate as he approached Truman and the other officers. (ECF No. 43-7). Defendant Leong had no contact with Truman during the fight. (d.) 9. Truman was charged and found guilty of assault, on 3/31/15, and he was given 9 months in Disciplinary Segregation. (ECF 43-4) 10. Truman was transferred to LCC on April 2, 2015. VI. CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED UPON TRIAL
1. Whether or not the claim against Defendants violates Plaintiffs Constitutional rights, and do the facts warrant a damage award? 1. Did Defendant individually violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights? 2. Did Mr. Truman prove the elements of a violation of his Eighth Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant. Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir.1979). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, t[o] show that [each defendant] was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Estate of Brooks ex rel. Brooks v. United States, 197 F.3d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Causation is, of course, a required element of a § 1983 claim.”). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AARON D. FORD Attorney General } DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 Senior Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Tel: (775) 684-1150 E-mail: drands@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants Darrion Houston; Matthew Leong; Thurston Moore; and Curtis Rigney CURTIS TRUMAN, Case No. 3:22-cv-00548-MMD-CLB Plaintiff, vs. JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER THURISTON MOORE, et al., Defendants. Following pretrial proceedings in this case, IT IS ORDERED: I. NATURE OF ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES Curtis Truman (Truman) is an inmate incarcerated in the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). Truman filed a Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 5) for events that allegedly occurred while he was housed at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) in May, 2022. (Cd. at 3). Truman alleges he was beaten while in leg shackles and handcuffed behind his back. In its Screening Order (ECF No. 4), this Court ordered that Truman could proceed on his Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim to proceed against Defendants Moore, Houston and Leong, and the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendant Rigney. (/d. at 9). 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, excessive force claim. 1. Plaintiffs Contentions Truman alleges that on May 20, 2022, Defendants Sgt. Moore, C/O Houston, and C/O Leong escorted Truman from his unit to “operations” at HDSP. (ECF No. 5 at 3-4.) During the escort, Truman’s hands were cuffed behind his back, and his legs were shackled. (Id. at 3.) At some point, Truman alleges these Defendants said there were no cameras, and they would “whoop [Truman’s] ass.” fd.) Defendants then allegedly lifted Truman off the ground and threw him down “face first.” (Id.) They allegedly proceeded to kick Truman’s “side” and ribs, knocking the wind out of him. (Id.) Truman claims they also punched his “head and face,” splitting his lip and leaving bruises. (Id. at 3-4.) When the escort arrived at “operations,” Defendants again allegedly slammed Truman onto the ground. (ECF No. 5 at 4.) This time, Truman’s face hit a metal bunk. dd.) As Truman lay on the ground, he claims one of these three Defendants placed a knee on his back while the others punched and kicked him. (/d.) Throughout the escort, Truman claims he was “never once . . aggressive,” nor did he put up any resistance. Ud.) 2. Defendants’ Contentions Defendants contend that the evidence does not support Plaintiffs allegations. Defendants incorporate any Affirmative Defenses from the Answer as it pertains to Defendants. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs constitutional rights have been violated. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, general and punitive damages. Mi
1 Il. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This is a civil action commenced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 111. UNCONTESTED FACTS ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES WHICH REQUIRE NO PROOF
1V. FACTS UNADMITTED THAT WILL NOT BE CONTESTED The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to the contrary: NONE. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED u UPON TRIAL
1. Whether Defendants followed use of force procedures or prison policy. 2. Whether Defendants held back evidence from Plaintiff in bad faith to cover up their wrongdoing and keep Plaintiff at a disadvantage. 3. S€e Cam □□□□ 1. Whether Plaintiff has met his burden of producing evidence supporting the facts set forth above, i.e. whether he can prove that the individual defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights? 2. Whether any form of damages is available to Plaintiff for any alleged failures? 3. Truman, in this matter, has filed a Complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. (ECF No. 5). 4. On or about May 20, 2022, Truman was involved in an incident at HDSP. (See ECF No. 43-1.) 5. Truman was observed with an open flame in the unit. Truman was 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 Houston. 5 8. Defendant Leong was attacked by another inmate as he approached Truman and the other officers. (ECF No. 43-7). Defendant Leong had no contact with Truman during the fight. (d.) 9. Truman was charged and found guilty of assault, on 3/31/15, and he was given 9 months in Disciplinary Segregation. (ECF 43-4) 10. Truman was transferred to LCC on April 2, 2015. VI. CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED UPON TRIAL
1. Whether or not the claim against Defendants violates Plaintiffs Constitutional rights, and do the facts warrant a damage award? 1. Did Defendant individually violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights? 2. Did Mr. Truman prove the elements of a violation of his Eighth Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant. Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir.1979). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, t[o] show that [each defendant] was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Estate of Brooks ex rel. Brooks v. United States, 197 F.3d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Causation is, of course, a required element of a § 1983 claim.”). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief [is]...a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 9th Cir. 2009). In Nevada, “punitive damages may be awarded when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is ‘guilty of oppression[;] fraud[;] or malice, express or implied.” Peters v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00874-GMN-EJY, 2023 WL 375985 at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2023) (citation omitted). “The standard for punitive damages under §1983 mirrors the standard for punitive damages under common law tort cases.... [S]everal states in the Ninth Circuit require proof by clear and convincing evidence before punitive damages are awarded on state law claim.” 9th Cir. Model. Civ. Jury Instrs. 5.5 (quoting Dang v. Cross, 422 i F.3d 800, 807 (9th Cir. 2005)). The State of Nevada is no exception. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005. ““Malice, express or implied’ means conduct which is intended to injure a person or despicable conduct which is engaged in with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Russo v. Duracell, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01403-GMN-DJA, 2022 } WL 960591 at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2022) (citing NRS 42.001(3)). “Conscious disregard’ means the knowledge of the probable harmful consequences of a wrongful act and a willful and deliberate failure to act to avoid those consequences.” Id. (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.001(1)). VII. EXHIBITS A. STIPULATED EXHIBITS AS TO AUTHENTICITY AND ADMISSIBILITY
1. Administrative Regulation 613 2. Administrative Regulation 740. fit
B. STIPULATED EXHIBITS AS TO AUTHENTICITY BUT NOT None. 1. Pictures of Plaintiffs injuries. 2. Declaration of Matthew Leong. 3. Declaration of Thurston Moore. 4, Declaration of Darrion Houston. 5. Transcripts of preliminary hearing made by Defendants and witnesses, Matthew Leong, Thurston Moore, John Betterley, and Jason Stenhouse. 6. Investigation report made by investigators Ivan Dubon and Karla Moreira. 7. Supervisors summary of incident. 8. Spontaneous use of force checklist. 9. Report on the use of force. 10. Letters from the Attorney General’s office. 11. Aldl Officer reports of May 20, 2022 incident. 12. IR-2020-HDSP-002002 13. IR-2022-HDSP-002001 14. IN-2022-0262 15. HDSP Operations shift log for May 20, 2022. 16. Administrative 405 Use of Force. 17. Operational Procedure 405 Use of Force. 18. All prison logs, Registers, Documents or other forms of data pertaining to any and all relevant to this claim. 19. Any and all other exhibits that may support the statements of facts and law cited herein and to rebut the Defendants’ claims, statements and testimony. ||
1 20. Any and all other exhibits that rebut witnesses that might be called to respond to claims made by either Defendant or any of his proposed witnesses. 21. Administrative Regulation 740. 22. Administrative Regulation 613. 23. All videos related to this incident. 1. Plaintiffs Historical Bed Assignments; 2. Plaintiffs Movement History Report; 3. Plaintiffs Information Summary; 4, Certified Judgment(s) of Conviction of Plaintiff for underlying offense (only if needed for impeachment); 5. Plaintiffs Disciplinary History; 6. Plaintiffs Grievance History; 7. Grievance #2006-31-37690; 8. IR-2022-HDSP-002002; 9. IR-2022-HDSP-002001; 10. Offense in Custody #508543; 11. Video, DSCF0013, High Desert State Prison, 5/20/2022; 12. Video, DSCF0012, High Desert State Prison, 5/20/2022; 13. Video, DSCF0014, High Desert State Prison, 5/20/2022; 14. HDSP Unit 8 Shift Log for May 20, 2022; 15. HDSP Unit 1 Shift Log for May 20, 2022; 16. Administrative Regulation 404-Emergency Situations; 17. Administrative Regulation 405-Use of Force; 18. Administrative Regulation 407-Use of Handcuffs and Restraints; 19. Audio Recording of Hearing on OIC #508543; 20. Plaintiffs Case Notes as maintained on the NDOC NOTIS system from 2014 to Present.
21. + All prison logs, registers, documents, or other form of data pertaining to any and all of Plaintiffs claims. 22. Plaintiffs relevant medical records and kites. 23. Any and all other exhibits that may support the statements of fact and law cited herein and to rebut Plaintiff's statements, claims, and testimony. 24. Any and all other exhibits that rebut witnesses that might be called to respond to claims made by either Plaintiff or any of his proposed witnesses; 1. None. VII. WITNESSES A. PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES: Plaintiff wishes to reserve the right to call the following persons: 1. Investigator Ivan Dubon. 2. Investigator Karla Moreira. 3. Inmate Vernon, Newsom #10518168. 4. Sargeant John Betterley. 5. C/O Matthew Leong. 6. Sargeant Thurston Moore. 7. Glen Faller (Warden) 8. Brian Williams Sr. (Warden) 9, Nethanjah Breitenbach (Warden) 10. C/O Darrion Houston. 11. Lieutenant Patrick Moreda. 12. Custodians of Record for any exhibits identified above. 13. Any and all rebuttal witnesses that might be called to respond to claims made by either Defendants or any of his witnesses. 14. Any and all other witnesses that have personal knowledge supporting Plaintiffs Statement of Facts or Law cited herein.
15. All witnesses identified by Defendants whether or not called to testify at trial. 16. C/O Sevmon White. Plaintiff and Defendants reserve the right to interpose objections to the calling any named witnesses listed above prior to or at trial. B. DEFENDANT’S WITNESSES: Defendants wish to reserve the right to call the following persons: 1. Plaintiff Curtis Truman, Inmate, High Desert State Prison; 2. Darrion Houston, Defendant, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717. 3. Matthew Leong, Defendant, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717. 4, Thurston Moore, Defendant, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717. 5. Kenneth Williams or medical director, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717. 6. Theresa Wickham, Patty Smith or other Director of Nursing, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717. 7. Truman’s outside medical providers, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717. 8. Nethanjah Breitenbach, Warden, LCC, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717. 9. Brian Williams, Sr., c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717. 10. Jason Stinehour, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717.
1 11. Curtis Rigney, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717. 12. Lieutenant Patrick Moreda, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717. 13. Custodian(s) of Record for any exhibits identified above, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of the Attorney General, 100 N. Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89701-4717, and (775) 684-1100. 14. Any and all rebuttal witnesses that might be called to respond to claims made by either Plaintiff or any of his witnesses. 15. Any and all other witnesses that have personal knowledge supporting Defendant’s statements of fact or law cited herein. 16. All witnesses identified by Plaintiff, whether or not called to testify at trial. Plaintiff and Defendants reserve the right to interpose objections to the calling of any named witness listed above prior to or at trial. | “ /// / || Wf || ] || || ///
1 IX. AVAILABLE TRIAL DATES Plaintiff and Defendants’ Counsel expressly understand that the Clerk shall set i the trial of this matter at the convenience of the Court's calendar. A jury has been requested. The following are three weeks in which both parties are available: August 12, 2025 August 19, 2025 September 15, 2025 DATED this .40_ day of _May_, 2025. Attorney General
By: /s/ Douglas R. Rands DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572 Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants DATED this 30_ day of _ma'y_, 2025. Curtis Truman #1248032 High Desert State Prison P.O. Box 650 Indian Springs, NV 89070 Plaintiff Pro Se
This case is set for Jury Trial on the stacked calendar on Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Calendar call shall be held on October 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. The foregoing Pre-Trial Order has been approved by the parties to this action as evidenced by signatures of their counsel hereon, and the Order is hereby entered and will govern the Trial of this case. This Order shall not be amended except by Order of the Court pursuant to the agreement by the parties or to prevent manifest injustice. ¢ C0