NORMAN SHAW V. SCOTT DAVIS, No. 20-15056 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NORMAN SHAW; ANSELL MATRIA JORDAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-15056 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00551-MMDCLB MEMORANDUM* JOSEPH COWART; et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT DAVIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoners Norman Shaw and Ansell Matria Jordan appeal pro * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). se from the district court’s orders denying their motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for reconsideration of the denial of a preliminary injunction in their action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (denial of preliminary injunction); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (denial of reconsideration). We vacate and remand. As a preliminary matter, although appellants timely appealed from the district court’s order denying reconsideration, appellants did not timely move for reconsideration for purposes of tolling the deadline for filing a notice of appeal as to the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction. Nevertheless, appellees have forfeited any timeliness challenge by failing to raise it below or on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (deadline for filing an appeal may be tolled by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration); Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 138 S. Ct. 13, 17-18 (2017) (a time limit not prescribed by Congress is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver and forfeiture); Demaree v. Pederson, 887 F.3d 870, 876 (9th Cir. 2018) (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) is a mandatory claim-processing rule under Hamer). The district court denied appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction only on the basis that appellants failed to establish irreparable harm. However, in 2 20-15056 screening the verified complaint, the district court determined that appellants alleged facts sufficient to state cognizable First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claims. See Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 1002 (9th Cir. 2005) (existence of a colorable First Amendment claim establishes irreparable injury in the context of a request for a preliminary injunction); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). We therefore vacate the denial of appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the district court should consider in the first instance the remaining preliminary injunction factors and, in doing so, may consider supplemental filings, if appropriate. Appellees shall bear the costs on appeal. VACATED and REMANDED. 3 20-15056
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
