Gonzalez v. Las Vegas Metropolitian Police Department et al

Filing 20

ORDER Granting 12 Motion to Dismiss defendant Clark County without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/3/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8

PEDRO GONZALES, et al.,

9
10
11
12

2:12-CV-1474 JCM (CWH)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

13

Defendant(s).

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is defendant Clark County’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 12).

17

Plaintiffs have not filed a response in opposition and the deadline date for filing a response has

18

passed.

19

Pro se plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the following defendants: Las Vegas

20

Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”); two officers employed by LVMPD; the Social

21

Security Administration (“SSA”); and, Clark County. LVMPD and one its officers answered the

22

complaint. (Doc. # 16).

23

Defendant Clark County filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 12). Plaintiffs filed a motion to

24

extend time to respond to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 17). The court granted plaintiffs a thirty-

25

day extension. (Doc. # 18). The thirty-day extension has passed and plaintiffs have not filed a

26

response.

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted

2

as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

3

1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Where a

4

complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent’ with a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the

5

line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S.

6

at 557). However, where there are well pled factual allegations, the court should assume their

7

veracity and determine if they give rise to relief. Id. at 1950.

8

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), an opposing party’s failure to file a timely response to any

9

motion constitutes the party’s consent to the granting of the motion and is proper grounds for

10

dismissal. U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the

11

district court is required to weigh several factors: “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution

12

of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)

13

the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

14

sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d

15

1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

16
17

In light of the plaintiff’s failure to respond and weighing the factors identified in Ghazali,
the court finds dismissal appropriate.

18

Accordingly,

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant Clark County’s

20
21
22
23

motion to dismiss (doc. # 12) be, and the same hereby, is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Clark County is dismissed from the action
without prejudice.
DATED July 3, 2013.

24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-