Willing v. Arms et al

Filing 62

ORDER Granting 33 Motion to Dismiss. All of plaintiffs claims against Nye County Detention Center are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 8/4/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

CHRISTOPHER J. WILLING,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01122-APG-PAL
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
(Dkt. #33)

v.
ARMS, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
10
11

Pro se plaintiff Christopher Willing filed a “Section 1983” suit against defendants Nye

12

County Detention Center (NCDC), Deputy Arms, Sergeant Martinez, Lieutenant Medina, and

13

Health Care Partners for violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights while in pretrial detention.1

14

Willing alleges he broke his collarbone while in custody and that the defendants interfered with,

15

delayed, and denied the necessary treatment of his injury.2 Willing also alleges defendants’

16

actions and inactions caused him further pain and suffering.3 Defendant NCDC moves to dismiss

17

Willing’s claims against it because it is not an entity capable of being sued.4 Because NCDC is a

18

department of Nye County and cannot be sued, I grant its motion.

19

In assessing a motion to dismiss, I must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations

20

in the complaint; however, legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth.5 A

21

complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations; however, those allegations must be “more

22

than labels and conclusions” and must “rise above the speculative level.”6 Thus, to survive a

23
1

(Dkt. #6.)

2

(Id. at 3.)

25

3

(Id. at 3-5.)

26

4

(Dkt. #33.)

5

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

6

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

24

27
28

1

motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim for relief

2

that is plausible on its face.”7 Allegations in a pro se complaint are “held to less stringent

3

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”8

4

The issue here is whether NCDC is a properly-named defendant. In Nevada, each county

5

is a political subdivision of the state and an independent legal entity, which means each county

6

can sue or be sued.9 But the same is not true of a county detention center. Rather, a county

7

detention center is a department of the county and not an independent legal entity.10 Therefore, it

8

cannot be sued under its own name. 11 Accordingly, I grant NCDC’s motion because NCDC is

9

not a suable entity, and thus Willing cannot state a cognizable legal claim against it.

10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Nye County Detention Center’s Motion to Dismiss

11

(Doc. 33) is GRANTED. All of plaintiff’s claims against Nye County Detention Center are

12

dismissed with prejudice.

13

DATED this 4th day of August, 2015.

14
15
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
7

Id. at 570.

8

Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (quotation omitted).

24

9

Clark Cnty. v. Lewis, 498 P.2d 363, 365 (Nev. 1972); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.031(2).

25

10

26

11

23

27
28

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.0305.

Wayment v. Holmes, 912 P.2d 816, 819-20 (Nev. 1996); Wright v. City of Las Vegas,
Nev., 395 F. Supp. 2d 789, 794 (S.D. Iowa 2005) (“In Nevada, political subdivisions may be
sued; departments of political subdivisions may not.” (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.031(1)-(2)
(2004))).
Page 2 of 2