🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Harry E. Claiborne

United States District Court for the District of Nevada district Retired 1986 · served 1978–1986 Appointed by Jimmy Carter 14 signed orders read

Judge Claiborne no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Claiborne decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Claiborne granted interim labor relief tailored to preserve employee rights while the administrative case proceeded.

“the request for a cease and desist order pending final determination by the NLRB is granted.”

He rejected workers' compensation exclusivity where neither the contractor nor the federal agency had supplied the asserted coverage.

“Because neither REECo nor the AEC provided NODA coverage for plaintiff’s radiation-caused disease, plaintiff may assert his ‘statutory employee’ status offensively against the Government”

He treated attorney-client protection as sufficient to quash compelled grand-jury testimony on the examined facts.

“Movant’s Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Ad Testificandum should be granted”

Procedural preferences

Claiborne remanded a state prosecution that did not belong in federal court.

“That Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is granted;”

He struck a supplemental memorandum filed outside the accepted procedural posture before resolving dismissal.

“the Memorandum of Supplemental Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, filed May 18, 1982, on behalf of the Plaintiff, is hereby stricken.”

He separately analyzed acquittal and new-trial standards rather than treating the post-trial requests as interchangeable.

“disposition of a posttrial motion for a judgment of acquittal is not required to be consistent”

Cautions

Claiborne dismissed civil-rights claims with or without leave to amend according to whether a pleading cure remained possible.

“the § 1981 claim is dismissed as against all defendants without leave to amend.”

He denied a bargaining order even while granting other interim labor relief.

“the request for a bargaining order is denied.”

He applied the exclusive-remedy rule to dismiss a wrongful-death action against both the United States and its contractor.

“dismiss the action with prejudice as to Defendants United States of America and Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Brown v. Supreme Court of Nevada
· 1979-07-17
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“The Motion for Preliminary Injunction is granted.”

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings Witness Agosto
· 1983-01-04
Motion to quash grand jury subpoena (witness) Granted

“the Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Ad Testificandum, filed by Witness Charles Agosto, on July 7, 1982, is hereby granted.”

Taylor Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Circo Resorts, Inc.
· 1978-10-11
Request for cease and desist order (NLRB) Granted

“the request for a cease and desist order pending final determination by the NLRB is granted.”

Request for reinstatement (NLRB) Granted

“The request for reinstatement is granted.”

Request for bargaining order (NLRB) Denied

“the request for a bargaining order is denied.”

Louis v. Supreme Court of Nevada
· 1980-04-16
Motions to dismiss (Supreme Court of Nevada) Granted

“The motion of defendant SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA to dismiss the complaint against it be, and the same hereby is GRANTED;”

Motions to dismiss (State Bar of Nevada) Granted

“The motion of defendant THE STATE BAR OF NEVADA to dismiss the complaint against it be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED;”

Motions to dismiss (Board of Bar Examiners) Granted

“The motion of defendant BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS OF THE STATE BAR OF NEVADA to dismiss the complaint against it be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED;”

Motions to dismiss (individual justices) Denied

“MANOUKIAN and HONORABLE CAMERON BATJER to dismiss the complaint against them be, and the same hereby is DENIED.”

United States v. Northrup
· 1980-01-10
Motion for judgment of acquittal (defendant) Denied

“Defendant Northrup’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. Rule 29(c) must be denied.”

Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied

“the Court must deny Defendant Northrup’s Motion for New Trial.”

People of State of Nev. v. King
· 1979-01-18
Motions to remand (plaintiffs) Granted

“That Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is granted;”

Austin v. Armstrong
· 1979-07-06
Summary judgment (William Puzey) Granted

“That the motion for summary judgment, submitted on behalf of Defendant William Puzey, is granted.”

Motions to dismiss (remaining defendants) Granted

“That the motion to dismiss, submitted on behalf of Defendants, Armstrong Burist, Fawcett, and Slansky, is granted.”

Snow v. United States
· 1979-11-05
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (United States) Granted

“I find no choice but to grant the Motions to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motions for Summary Judgment, and dismiss the action with prejudice as to Defendants United States of America and Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co.”

Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co.) Granted
Vasquez v. City of Reno
· 1978-12-07
Motions to dismiss (all defendants) Granted

“the § 1981 claim is dismissed as against all defendants without leave to amend.”

Motions to dismiss (City of Reno) Granted

“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Defendant City of Reno under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and that claim is dismissed with leave to amend as against that Defendant.”

Motions to dismiss (civil service commissioners) Granted

“I dismiss the complaint without leave to amend as to the Defendants Burgess, Stewart, Fremouth, O’Gara and McCarthy.”

Prescott v. United States
· 1981-09-09
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (REECo) Denied

“REECo’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment on the grounds that NODA is plaintiff’s exclusive remedy, must be and hereby is denied with prejudice against REECo.”

Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (United States) Denied

“the Government’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6), or in the alternative for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(b), on the grounds that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is under NODA, must be and hereby is denied.”

Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (REECo) Denied

“REECo’s motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds of lack of diversity must be and hereby is denied.”

Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (REECo) Denied

“REECo’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment based upon the statute of limitations must be and hereby is denied without prejudice.”

Productions & Leasing v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc.
· 1983-10-13
Motions to strike (gaming regulators) Granted

“That the Motion to Strike, filed May 27, 1982, on behalf of the Nevada Gaming Commission, the State Gaming Control Board, and their past and present members in this action, is hereby granted”

Motions to dismiss (gaming regulators) Granted

“That the Motion to Dismiss Complaint, filed April 17, 1981, on behalf of the Nevada Gaming Commission, the State Gaming Control Board, and their past and present members named in this action, is hereby granted.”

United States v. Bekoff
· 1982-01-06
Motion to suppress (defendant) Granted

“the Motion to Suppress, filed on behalf of the Defendant, shall be granted.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The 20 reviewed decisions cover varied litigation but do not establish the distribution of Claiborne's full caseload.

A historical record

Judge Claiborne no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.