Simmons v. City of Henderson Police Department

Filing 18

ORDER Granting 6 & 13 Motions to Dismiss. Denying 10 Motion to Amend, 11 to Serve Notice, 12 To Amend Address, and 17 To Join Parties. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 8/6/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SD)

Simmons v. City of Henderson Police Department

Doc. 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C L A Y T O N SIMMONS, 10 P la in tif f , 11 vs. 12 13 14 D e f e n d a n t. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 T h is action was commenced May 7, 2010 by the filing of Plaintiff Clayton S im m o n s ' Pro Se Complaint against Defendant City of Henderson and Police D e p a rtm e n t of the City of Henderson (Doc. #3). Now before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #6) filed June 17, 2010 on behalf of Improperly Named City of H e n d e rs o n Police Department (Doc. #6), Plaintiff's Counter motion to Join Both P a rtie s Together (Doc. #10), Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Plaintiff's Address (Doc. # 1 2 ), Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. #13) and P la in tif f 's Motion to Join Both Parties, "City of Henderson" and "Henderson Police D e p a rtm e n t" as Defendants to this Suit (Doc. #17). H a v in g read and considered the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant's M o tio n to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. #13) must C IT Y OF HENDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 :1 0 -C V -0 0 0 1 1 -P M P -L R L ORDER U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D I S T R I C T OF NEVADA ***

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

b e GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint was not served, no Summons was issued and no p e rs o n a l service has been effected. Additionally, the improperly named "City of H e n d e rs o n Police Department" is not a legally cognizable entity capable of being sued. Additionally, the events giving rise the claims asserted in Plaintiff's complaint a lle g e d ly occurred on January 10 and 11, 2007, which is more than two years prior to th e commencement of this action. As a result, Plaintiff's suit is barred by the a p p lic a b le two-year statute of limitations under N.R.S. 11.190(4). I T IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 1 3 ) is GRANTED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Separate Motion to Dismiss (D o c . #6) is GRANTED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Amend (Doc. #10), T o Serve Notice (Doc. #11), To Amend Address (Doc. #12) and To Join Parties (Doc. # 1 7 ) are DENIED. D A T E D : August 6, 2010.

PHILIP M. PRO U n ite d States District Judge

Page 2 of 2