Chernetsky v. State Of Nevada ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ANTHONY THOMAS CHERNETSKY, Case No. 3:06-cv-00252-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Thomas Chernetsky’s1 Motion for 12 Trial for Damages and Request for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 292 13 (“Motion”)).2 For the following reasons, the Court denies the Motion. 14 The most recent appeal in this case resolved the sole remaining claim under the 15 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). (ECF No. 287; see also 16 ECF No. 89.) The Ninth Circuit held that “Chernetsky’s RLUIPA claim is not moot,” and 17 “reverse[ed] the district court’s order and remand[ed] for entry of a judgment in favor of 18 Chernetsky” because “the State [] failed to produce any evidence substantiating its claim 19 that AR 810’s ban on natural anointing oils is the least restrictive means of furthering its 20 interests in prison security.” (ECF No. 287 at 2, 4.) Because Chernetsky has already 21 received the declaratory and injunctive relief that he seeks, no new trial is necessary in 22 this case. 23 24 1Chernetsky is representing himself pro se in this matter. “Courts in this circuit have 25 an obligation to give a liberal construction to the filings of pro se litigants,” which relieves pro se litigants “from the strict application of procedural rules and demands that courts 26 not hold missing or inaccurate legal terminology or muddled draftsmanship against them.” Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). 27 2Defendants responded (ECF No. 297) and Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 299). Plaintiff 28 also filed a motion to revive his previous ex parte request for a hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 278). (ECF No. 301.) The Cour denies this 1 Further, Chernetsky is not entitled to the monetary damages he seeks. (See ECF 2 || No. 292 at 5-6.) In the case of RLUIPA claims, relief in the form of monetary damages is 3 || not available. Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 280 (2011); Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 4 || 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015). Therefore, there is no question of damages to be resolved in 5 || this case. Accordingly, the Court denies Chernetsky’s request for trial on damages. 6 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Trial for Damages and Request for 7 || Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 292) is denied. 8 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to revive ex parte motion (ECF No. 301) 9 || is denied as moot. 10 DATED THIS 12" Day of June 2024. 12 MIRANDA M. DU 13 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28