Thompson v. Nevada Secretary of State (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Clark County Andy THOMPSON v. NEVADA SECRETARY OF STATE
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Nevada (NV)
Court
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided
2025
Disposition
Vacated
Thompson v. Nevada Secretary of State, 2025 WL 2617494 (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2617494 (Nev.Dist.Ct.) (Trial Order)District Court of Nevada.Clark CountyAndy THOMPSON, Plaintiff,v.NEVADA SECRETARY OF STATE, Defendant.No. A-24-906377-C.August 4, 2025.*1 DEPARTMENT 29Editor's Note: This document contains discussion of unverified citations, likely generatedby AI tools used by a party or counsel. These citations are not attributable to the Court. Theunverified citations have been preserved as part of the official record, but links are unavailable.Order on Motions for Reconsideration of June 18, 2025 Order and for Preservation of Judicial Economy, EmergencyMotion for Stay of Election Machine Overwrite, Emergency Motion to Expedite Rulings on Pending MotionsJacob A. Reynolds, Judge.This Court's Order on June 18, 2025, entered on June 19, 2025, details much of the history in this case. The Court incorporatesthat history here by reference but reiterates one point:On March 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion to Reconsider the Motion to PreserveEvidence. In that Motion Plaintiff threatened the court with a personal lawsuit if THE COURT caused further delays or THECOURT continued to disregard legal duties:Accordingly, this motion serves not only to request reconsideration, but also to put the Court on notice that further delaysor disregard for clearly established legal duties may form the basis of a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judges donot enjoy immunity when acting in clear absence of jurisdiction, or where they knowingly deprive constitutional rights.(Mot. at 3-4.) Notably, those bolded statements were bolded in Plaintiff's original filing. They are not added emphasis by theCourt. Plaintiff's meaning was clear inter alia Plaintiff was blaming the Court for the delays in resolving this issue.At the Hearing in May, the Court addressed this with the pro se Plaintiff. Plaintiff profusely apologized and said no threat wasmeant. Despite the plain words, the Court did not issue any sanctions at that time.In the current filings before the Court Plaintiff directly, and unambiguously accuses the Court of “Judicial Complicity” statingthat “The facts of this case do not merely suggest strategic mooting-they prove it.” (Pl's Em. Mot. for Stay at 2 6) (boldemphasis in original). Once again, the bolded emphasis is in Plaintiff's filing, not added emphasis by the Court.So even though all prior continuances were based on Plaintiff's failed filings and requests for additional time and extensions,now the Court is being expressly blamed for being “complicit” in some type of strategic delay.Plaintiff has now also openly threatened the Court with a lawsuit and punitive measures unless he gets his way:15. Plaintiff will immediately pursue appropriate referrals to:
Thompson v. Nevada Secretary of State, 2025 WL 2617494 (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2• The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline,• The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, and• The Office of Professional Responsibility,…should this Court continue to suppress federal statutory obligations.(Id. at 15.)The Court has not alleviated Defendant from any federal statutory requirements. Plaintiff does ask for leniency though basedon his pro se status. (Pl's Mot. for Recon. ¶¶ 5-9.) Plaintiff suggests his treatment in the prior Order was retribution for his poorwording, threats and so forth. Plaintiff further suggests his case should be allowed to proceed, essentially, because his is pro se.(Id.) But pro se status cannot become a sword to charge through an action and defeat all defenses. That is instead the requiredrole of merit, logic, and reason – not one's status. Plaintiff chooses to proceed pro se as is his right, but it is not Defendant'sduty, nor is it the Court's duty, to fall upon Plaintiff's sword.*2 Perhaps the basis of Plaintiff's assumed lack of knowledge of his prior threat is now explained when it is shown that thereis no basis for his citation to State v. Nye County, 129 Nev. 521 (2013) in the subsequent paragraphs. (Pl's Em. Mot. for Stay at2 at 9.) There is no such case, and the case at that citation does not discuss anything supporting the claimed citation. In short,this appears another unfortunate attempt in which the Court has to deal with a party using AI to draft pleadings. In prior cases,this Court has awarded $5,000.00 as a sanction against parties using AI that create non-existent cases which are then submittedto Court under NRCP 11. Plaintiff is bound by NRCP 11 in all of his filings with the Court.The Court will not condone false filings. Personal attacks on the Court are simply unpersuasive. The Court is unaware ofPlaintiff's practice in life, whether Plaintiff finds personal attacks, insinuations, and threats successful in his day-to-day living,but attempting to bully or intimidate the Court is not persuasive – not motivating – and certainly not appropriate.DECISIONPursuant to EDCR 2.23 the Court finds that it is proper to issue a ruling on this matter at Plaintiff's request and therefore anorder is issued without oral argument.The COURT orders that all aspects of all pending motions are hereby DENIED.Plaintiff has raised nothing to persuade the Court that any of its orders were in error. Plaintiff has not cited to any statute or case(meaning an actual existing case) that would thwart the reasoning in its prior order. Plaintiff has presented nothing that showshe should be allowed complete and unfettered access to the information he seeks. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence orsuggested that he would be able to post a bond sufficient to justify a stay of the Secretary of State's actions to the level hebelieves he is entitled.Inasmuch as Plaintiff seeks reconsideration for purposes of judicial economy this argument is misplaced. Now the mosteconomic use of Plaintiff's time for a resolution of this matter is with an appeal to evaluate Plaintiff's argument and to decide ifthis Court is wrong. This Court made its decision based upon the Nevada Supreme Court's decisions and the legislated statutesof the State of Nevada. Judicial economy now favors taking this matter on appeal so that if this Court is wrong, or those casesare wrong, or the statues are unconstitutional—all of which Plaintiff suggests is the case—then the Supreme Court is the oneto say so.
Thompson v. Nevada Secretary of State, 2025 WL 2617494 (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3ALL PENDING MOTIONS are therefore DENIED.The Hearing scheduled for August 7, 2025, is VACATED.Dated this 4th day of August, 2025<<signature>>DISTRICT JUDGE51EC73 1288 264CJacob A. ReynoldsDistrict Court JudgeEnd of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access