Brenes et al vs Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 84

ORDER granting 50 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Sean Miller Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/16/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

LYDIA VASQUEZ-BRENES, et al.,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:12-CV-1635 JCM (VCF)
ORDER

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

12
13

Presently before the court is the remand from the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum decision

14

reversing this court’s partial denial of defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

15

(“LVMPD”) and Officer Sean Miller’s (“Miller”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 50,

16

65, 80). The applicable mandate was spread upon the records of this court on January 10, 2017.

17

(ECF No. 83).

18

On September 10, 2014, this court issued its order on defendants’ motion for summary

19

judgment. (ECF No. 65). In the order, this court acknowledged that “[p]laintiffs have also

20
21

conceded to dismissal of their Monell claim and their claims for false arrest and denial of medical
care.” (Id. at 3). Further, the order read as follows:
The following claims remain: (1) a Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force
against officer Miller brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) a Fourteenth Amendment
claim that officer Miller violated Brenes’ substantive due process rights brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) a battery claim against officer Miller and the LVMPD;
and (4) a negligence claim against officer Miller and the LVMPD.

22
23
24
(Id.).
25

Regarding Miller, the court granted summary judgment as to the substantive due process

26

claim but denied summary judgment as to the excessive force claim and the state tort claims

27

because the court did not hold that Miller’s use of force was reasonable. (Id.). Regarding LVMPD,

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

this court granted summary judgment based on discretionary-function immunity as to the state tort

2

claims. (Id.). Therefore, no claims against LVMPD remain.

3

On November 10, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum holding that its

4

jurisdiction over the relevant appeal was proper and that Miller was entitled to qualified immunity

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

because he had not violated clearly established law. (ECF No. 80). The Ninth Circuit reversed
this court’s decision and “remand[ed] with instructions to grant Miller’s motion for summary
judgment on qualified immunity.” (Id. at 3–4). Thus, that will be the order of the court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Miller’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 50) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
DATED February 16, 2017.

12
13

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-