Barren v. Dzurenda

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR FILED □□□□□□ DISTRICT OF NEVADA ENTERED SERVEL COUNSELPARTIES OF REC DONALD ROBIN BARREN, | DEC 28 2021 | CLERK US DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, DISTRICT OF NEVADA Vs. Case No. : 2:19-cv-00142-APG-V Qe □□□ JAMES DZURENDA, Director et al., MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MODIFY Defendants Comes now Donald Robin Barren, Plaintiff respectfully move the honorable court pursuant to United Stat District Court District Of Nevada’s Local Rules of Practice LR 16.1-3; LR 16.1-21 Good Faith Participation; an 22-2. Specifically the honorable court dismissed defendant’s Branden Everett; Caseworker Hernandez Minerva De La Torre; and Michael Keeler, for failure to timely serve the defendants Thus the Plaintiff respectfully request that the Honorable Court reconsider its December 15, 2021, Order Dismis Defendants. id. The Plaintiffs request is based on his assertion that his circumstances differ under the status of being on parole z under the authority of the named defendants in this case where a prisoner in Nevada does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in being released on parole, only in having access to a parole hearing. | v. Palmer, 603 F.3d 658, 662, 663, (9"" cir. 2010). Also, “ the Nevada Supreme court noted that because credit deductions only serve to make an inmate eligible for parole earlier’, there is no relief available when the offend has already expired his sentence. See Williams v. Nevada State Dept. of Corr., 133 Nev. 594, 600 n. 7, 402 p.3d 1260,1265 n. 7 (2017).

The Plaintiff maintains and says that he has not expired his sentence nor can he ever under the authority of thes defendants where the record clearly shows a fortiori. By there on admissions they did deny to the Plaintiff his benefits to anything beneficial under the laws of Nevada. i.e., Nevada Revised Statutes.

In furtherance the Plaintiff maintains and says that Michael Keeler; and Minerva De La Torre, retaliated after the learned that he exercised his right to challenge their authority under the Law and United States Constitution □□□□ the Nevada State District Court.

Thereafter through collaboration initiated by the executive secretaries viable position with the vicarious authorit invested to her in violation of the Plaintiff's 1* Amendment right. Simply put, 1. The plaintiff has credit deductic earned as admitted by the defendants. However, 2. The defendants refuse to give the plaintiff any benefit whatsoever. “credit deductions ‘only serve’ to make an ‘inmate eligible for parole earlier’ ” id. Inr etrostpote hcaett ,t orGneenye rcallatsih mat th e"ya dvitshceeod u arntBd a rrtehnat thN ee vaddeap artomfe n Correcctoiuonlnodist d enHteirfnya niddeezn'atsni ddti ynd o ktn otwh lea ksnto wand drfeosDrse L aT orrEeCN.Fo .

38a t2 ;3 9a t2 .H owev"etrhl,ea ksnto wand drfeosdrse fendKaenetlasen rdE ver{eatruten }d seera Ild.." Fotrh ree cocrodm mosni ntceelm lets h aiwtto ulndob te a g ooidd etaot rya ncdo ntaancoytf t hedseef endant undmeyrc ircumsit.aene.cxf,e e slo.on pn a rolloeo kfiontrgh p ea robloeac rodm misstihoavntie orlsa ted hi Constitruitgibhoytcn saa lllh iinbmga ctkot hpea robloeaa rndgd i vhiinamgn a dditoinoyene aaolrf i mprisonm foerx erchiisrsii nggh t.

MoreovmearyIr, e specrtefquultelhsyatt th H eo norUanbilteSe tda Dtiesst Croiucgrtit vt ehP el aitnhtei ff opporttuosn uibtmyUi StM -2f8o5ri mni tfsi noarlda enrdd e ciwshieortneh c eo vidp-a1n9d emiincta,el rih aa.s, hindeerveeder ffyo rttol eatvhehe o uisneas afaen tdi memlayn nteorm eetth hiosn orcaobulredt e'asd line.

TheretfhoPerl ea ipnrtaifyfosrfr e lwiietfhh iirnse qufeosrrte considteoar lalthoiiwo7m dn a yisnw hitcohas ubmi USM-2f8o5rw mi tlhe aovfce o urt forthwith.

RespecStufbumliltyt ed Dattehdi s4o�fD ecemb2e0r2,1 . f?.._� 1.CasNeo.:2:19-cv-00142-APG-VCF � � InP ropPreiras ona DonaRlodb Bianr ren � Plaintiff CertiOffiS cearvtiec e ThSet aotfNe e vasdsa: ClaCroku nty ID,o nald Robin Bdaerproeasnne,sds a Pylsa Iiat nmhtt ahitaef ffi fa nitnp roppreiras aonntdah aImt a ilae d truaen cdo rrceocpotyft haet tacMhOeTdI OFNO RR ECONSIDEtRoAe TaIcoOhftN h feo lloiwnitnegr peasrtteide AARODN.F ORADt,t orGneenye rJaalrM;e. dF rost,DSeepnuiAtotyrt orGneenye ral 55E5. W ashinAgvteoS.nt, 3e 9.0 0 LaVse gas, 8N9e1v0a1d.a E-Mail: [email protected] That the same is stated under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec.1746 Case No. 2:19-cv-00142-APG-VCF Dated this Hay of December, 2021 IS zie In propria Peraona a Robin Barren ORDER This motion is granted. The plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. 55) is deemed timely filed for purposes of my prior order (ECF No. 50).”

IT IS SO ORDERED: Dated: January 11, 2022 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE