Thompson v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 34

ORDER that 27 Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Thompson shall file the proposed amended complaint [Doc. 66-1] by February 27, 2015. FURTHER ORDERED that 18 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that 30 Motion to Extend Time is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 2/18/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Luqris Thompson,

5

Plaintiff

6

v.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Case No.: 2:14-cv-1286-JAD-NJK
Order re: Docs. 18, 27, 30

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et
al.,
Defendants
Plaintiff Luqris Thompson alleges that he was convicted of an April 9, 2007, robbery
in Nevada State Court, but his conviction was vacated years later when the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department received new information about his case. Doc. 7 at 6-11.
Thompson alleges that if the Clark County defenders had not appointed an inexperienced
criminal defense attorney, Gerald Luke Ciciliano, to defend him, he never would have been
convicted. See id. at 6-9. Thompson sues Ciciliano and a host of other defendants for (1)
negligence; (2) common law and civil rights conspiracy; (3) due process violations under 42
U.S.C. § 1983; (4) civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (5) intentional infliction of
emotional distress; (6) malicious prosecution; and (7) false imprisonment. Id. at 12-17.
On January 15, 2015, Thompson moved for leave to file a proposed Fourth Amended
Complaint in this civil rights action, which seeks to elaborate on Ciciliano’s negligence, and
restrict his negligence count to Ciciliano only. Doc. 27 at 4. No defendant has opposed
Thompson’s motion. Under Local Rule 7-2(d), the failure to respond to the motion for leave
to amend constitutes consent to granting the motion; upon review of Thompson’s motion, I
find it has merit and should be granted.
Ciciliano previously moved to dismiss Thompson’s Third Amended Complaint,
arguing that Thompson failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted under Rule

27
28

1

1

12(b)(6) and that Thompson’s claims are barred under the statute of limitations. Doc. 18.

2

Ciciliano then moved to extend his time to reply. Doc. 30. Given the significant differences

3

between Thompson’s Third and Fourth Amended Complaints as they relate to allegations

4

against Ciciliano, I deny his motion to dismiss without prejudice to its reurging once

5

Thompson files his Fourth Amended Complaint, and I deny his motion for an extension of

6

time as moot.1

7

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Thompson’s Motion for Leave to File

8

Fourth Amended Complaint [Doc. 27] is GRANTED. Thompson shall file the proposed

9

amended complaint [Doc. 66-1] by February 27, 2015.

10
11
12
13
14

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Ciciliano’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 18] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Ciciliano’s Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. 30]
is DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED February 18, 2015.

15

_________________________________
__ _ _
_______________________
_ _ _
Jennifer A. Dorsey
ifer Dorsey
r
y
United States District Judge
ed States District Judge
u

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1

Defendants George Libbey (the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Detective
entrusted with the investigation of Thompson’s case), and the LVMPD (Libby’s employer) have
also moved to dismiss the complaint, attacking all of Thompson’s claims against LVMPD and
25 Thompson’s second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action against Libbey. Doc.
28. Because the allegations in Thompson’s Fourth Amended Complaint are substantively
26 unchanged as they relate to these two defendants, I elect to reach this motion to dismiss (Doc.
28), as filed, in due course. Any differences between the Third and Fourth Amended Complaints
27 can be adequately addressed in Thompson’s response and defendants’ reply to the motion.
24

28

2