Hunter v. Clark County Detention Center et al

Filing 52

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 26 defendant Naphcare, Inc.'s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court shall correct the caption to reflect that defendant Napha Healthcare is corre ctly identified as Naphcare, Inc. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall also forward this order to the Pro Bono Liaison. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/6/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

CHRISTOPHER S. HUNTER,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8

v.
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
et al.,
Defendants.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 2:14-cv-01560-APG-VCF
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
NAPHCARE, INC.’S MOTION TO
DISMISS AND (2) REFERRING THIS
CASE TO THE PRO BONO PROGRAM
(ECF No. 26)

Defendant Naphcare, Inc. (erroneously sued as Napha Healthcare) moves to dismiss
plaintiff Christopher S. Hunter’s two claims against it. First, Naphcare argues that Hunter’s
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim should be dismissed because the amended
complaint alleges only negligence, not deliberate indifference. Second, Naphcare argues that
Hunter’s claim that his privacy rights were violated when Naphcare discussed his medical
condition and drew his blood in front of other inmates fails to state a claim under the Fourth
Amendment.
Hunter responds by agreeing to dismiss his Eighth Amendment claim. ECF No. 47 at 3-4.
However, he contends that his privacy claim is based on the Fourteenth Amendment, not the
Fourth Amendment.
I grant Naphcare’s motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim as unopposed because
Hunter agrees to dismissal. See ECF No. 7-2(d). Moreover, I already dismissed this claim with
prejudice in my prior screening order. See ECF No. 11 at 6-7.
I deny Naphcare’s motion to dismiss Hunter’s privacy claim. Naphcare treats the claim as
one under the Fourth Amendment. However, as my screening order and Hunter’s opposition
point out, the claim is a Fourteenth Amendment claim. See ECF Nos. 11 at 4-5; 47. Because
Naphcare does not move to dismiss this claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, I deny that
portion of the motion.

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Naphcare, Inc.’s motion to dismiss (ECF

2

No. 26) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff Christopher Hunter’s Eighth

3

Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant Naphcare, Inc. is dismissed with

4

prejudice. Plaintiff Christopher Hunter’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant

5

Naphcare, Inc. remains pending.

6
7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court shall correct the caption to reflect that
defendant Napha Healthcare is correctly identified as Naphcare, Inc.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is referred to the Pilot Pro Bono Program
(“Program”) adopted in General Order 2016-02 for the purpose of screening for financial

10

eligibility (if necessary) and identifying counsel willing to be appointed as pro bono counsel for

11

plaintiff Christopher Hunter. The scope of appointment shall be for all purposes through the

12

conclusion of trial. By referring this case to the Program, the Court is not expressing an opinion

13

as to the merits of the case.

14
15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall also forward this order to the Pro Bono
Liaison.
DATED this 6th day of July, 2017.

17
18
19

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2