Victory v. Henderson NA P.D.

[4] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [5] DISTRICT OF NEVADA [6] 7 JUSTIN LYNN VICTORY, Case No. 2:23-cv-02086-CDS-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 HENDERSON NA P.D., et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis subject to making a 13 partial payment. Docket No. 10; see also Docket No. 16 (receipt of partial payment). The Court 14 now screens Plaintiff’s complaint with respect to the Henderson Police Department pursuant to [15] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e).1 16 Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or 17 malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from 18 a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). When a court dismisses a 19 complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions 20 as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies 21 could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 22 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 23 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 24 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719 , 723 25 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 26 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, [27] 1 The Court will separately address the claims with respect to the Bank of America, Metro 28 police Defendants, and the John Doe Henderson police officers. [1] 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it 2 demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 3 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 , 4 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 5 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 . 6 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 7 not suffice. Id. at 678 . Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 8 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 . 9 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 10 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 , 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 11 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 12 Plaintiff’s complaint seeks to bring a claim against the Henderson Police Department under [13] 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . See Docket No. 1-1 at 1. Local governments, such as municipalities, cannot be 14 held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of City of 15 N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Local governments can instead be sued only for “a policy 16 statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s 17 officers” or for a “governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received formal 18 approval through the body’s official decisionmaking channels.” Id. at 690-91 .2 19 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Henderson police officers used excessive force. See 20 Docket No. 1-1 at 3. Plaintiff makes no allegations at all with respect to the Henderson Police 21 Department, however, other than alleging that the officers were members of the department. Such 22 allegations are insufficient to plead a claim for Monell liability. See, e.g., Christie v. Iopa, 176 F.3d 23 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1999) (“A single constitutional deprivation ordinarily is insufficient to 24 establish a longstanding practice or custom”). [26] 2 The proper party in this case would be the City of Henderson and not the Henderson 27 Police Department. E.g., Wallace v. City of N. Las Vegas, 2011 WL 2971241 , at *1 (D. Nev. July 20, 2011). Regardless, allegations sufficient to state a Monell claim are absent here, even were the 28 correct party sued. ] In light of the above, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Henderson Police 2|| Department. “Generally, a plaintiff who names municipal entities without Monell allegations will 3] be given an opportunity to amend the complaint.” Nelson v. Inyo County Sheriffs Dept., 2007 WL 4 ] 2711399, at *5 n.3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2007). It seems unlikely that Plaintiff could cure the 5| deficiency identified, but leave to amend will be provided to err on the side of caution. 6 Accordingly, Defendant Henderson Police Department is DISMISSED from the case with 7| leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until May 24, 2024, to file an Amended Complaint, if the noted 8|| deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed 9| that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (1.e., the original Complaint) in order to make the 10] Amended Complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an Amended Complaint 11] supersedes the original Complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an Amended Complaint be 12] complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an Amended 13] Complaint, the original Complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an 14] Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 15|| Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the 16] recommended dismissal of the Henderson Police Department without further opportunity to 17| amend and the case will instead proceed only with respect to the John Doe Henderson police 18] officers. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: April 24, 2024 he. 21 7 ( S SA Nancy J. Koppe* 22 United States Magistrate Judge