Cohen v. Henderson Justice Court

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 MICHAEL R. COHEN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01708-RFB-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER and 6 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 HENDERSON JUSTICE COURT et al, 8 Defendants. [9] 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). No filing fee 11 or application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was received. This would ordinarily lead to an 12 order requiring Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a complete IFP application before a 13 substantive review of his Complaint. Here, however, Plaintiff names as Defendants two parties who 14 are immune from suit, and another against whom he cannot state a claim as pleaded. The Court thus 15 exercises its authority to sua sponte recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the Henderson 16 Justice Court, Clark County District Attorney’s Office with prejudice, and Clark County Public 17 Defender’s Office because Plaintiff “cannot possibly win relief.” Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., [18] 864 F.2d 635 , 638 (9th Cir. 1988). 19 Separately, the Court orders Plaintiff’s claim against the Henderson Police Department 20 (“HPD”) dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend because Plaintiff may be able to state 21 a claim against HPD under Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 22 I. DISCUSSION 23 A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 24 “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that 25 would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791 , 794 (9th Cir. 1992). A complaint 26 may be dismissed if it is premised on a nonexistent legal interest or when the defendants are clearly 27 immune from suit. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989) (citing Williams v. Goldsmith, 1 Here, Plaintiff attempts to assert claims against the Henderson Justice Court. ECF No. 1-1 2 at 2, 7. However, as an arm of the state, Henderson Justice Court enjoys sovereign immunity under 3 the Eleventh Amendment. See Greater L.A. Council on Deafness v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 4 1987) (a county court in California is protected by the Eleventh Amendment because “its 5 geographical location within any particular county cannot change the fact that the court derives its 6 power from the State and is ultimately regulated by the State”); see also NRS 4.370 (establishing 7 jurisdiction and authority of Nevada’s Justice Courts). For this reason, the Court recommends all 8 claims against Henderson Justice Court be dismissed with prejudice. 9 Plaintiff also asserts claims against the Clark County District Attorney’s Office, alleging 10 that the District Attorney withheld evidence from counsel. ECF No. 1-1 at 5. Prosecutors enjoy 11 absolute immunity from suits that “arise from their performance of prosecutorial functions, even if 12 the acts in question were committed in bad faith.” Patterson v. Van Arsdel, 883 F.3d 826 , 829-30 13 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 422-29 (1976)). See also Broam v. Bogan, [14] 320 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If the action was part of the judicial process, the prosecutor 15 is entitled to the protection of absolute immunity whether or not he or she violated the civil plaintiff’s 16 constitutional rights.”). Plaintiff cannot sidestep this immunity by bringing a claim against the 17 District Attorney’s Office rather than against a particular prosecutor, because “it is not a separate 18 entity capable of being sued under Section 1983.” Williams v. Clark Cnty., Case No. 2:22-cv-0004519 JAD-EJY, 2022 WL 2658978 , at *3 (D. Nev. June 16, 2022). 20 Plaintiff also alleges violations by, but does not name as Defendants, the Clark County Public 21 Defender’s Office. ECF No. 1-1 at 5, 7. Any such claims must fail because public defenders are 22 not state actors capable of being sued under § 1983. Miranda v. Clark Cnty., Nev., 319 F.3d 465 , 23 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (as a matter of law, a Clark County public defender does not “become a state 24 actor within the meaning of § 1983” even when “providing inadequate representation to [a] 25 defendant”). 26 Finally, Plaintiff asserts claims against the HPD seemingly arising out of his transfer from 27 Washoe to Clark County. ECF No. 1-1 at 3, 7. Unlike the above Defendants, municipalities and 1 policy, practice or custom. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91 . While Plaintiff’s Complaint, as currently 2 pleaded, fails to state a claim under Monell, it is not impossible for Plaintiff to potentially do so. A 3 plaintiff may recover under Monell based on one of three theories: (1) commission—when a 4 municipality establishes an official policy or custom that causes the injury; (2) omission—when a 5 municipality's oversight amounts to a deliberate indifference to a constitutional right; or (3) 6 ratification—when a policymaker authorizes or approves of the constitutional injury. Clouthier v. 7 Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232 , 1249–50 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds 8 by Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2016). 9 II. ORDER 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against the Henderson Police Department 11 is DISMISSED without prejudice. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a copy of the form 13 Civil Rights Complaint for inmates, together with the instructions for completing the same. Plaintiff 14 is advised that his amended complaint must not name defendants (whether individuals or entities) 15 who are immune from suit. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must include all facts he wishes to assert 16 against the Henderson Police Department keeping in mind the standard for stating a claim under 17 Monell explained above. Plaintiff must file his amended complaint no later than October 31, 2024. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a copy of the IFP 19 application form inmates and instructions for completing the same together with a copy of this Order. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will have through and including October 31, 21 2024 to file a complete IFP application together with an amended complaint. Plaintiff must ensure 22 he submits all three documents required to proceed in forma pauperis. This includes (1) a complete 23 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis for Inmate on the Court’s approved form; (2) a 24 Financial Certificate properly signed by both the inmate and a prison or jail official; and (3) a copy 25 of the inmate’s prison or jail trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. 26 Even if Plaintiff has not been in the custody of Clark County Detention Center a full six-months 27 period, Plaintiff must submit his inmate financial certificate and trust fund account statement for the 1 III. RECOMMENDATION 2 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against the Henderson Justice 3 Court, Clark County District Attorney’s Office, and Clark County Public Defender’s Office be 4 DISMISSED with prejudice. 5 Dated this 19th day of September, 2024. [7] 8 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [9] 10 NOTICE 11 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be 12 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has 13 held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file 14 objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also 15 held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address 16 and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 17 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 18 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452 , 454 (9th Cir. 1983).