Picozzi v. Clark County Detention Center et al

Filing 13

ORDER that 10 Motion to Extend Time to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint in compliance with the court's November 25, 2015, order. FURTHER ORDERED that 11 Motion for the court to order CCDC to provide him with the names of officers and nurses is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 12 Motion for the court to order CCDC to stop tampering with his mail is DENIED. FURTHER ORDE RED that the plaintiff's request that the court file injunctive orders against the CCDC and against inmate accounts is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's request for a hearing is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/20/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

MARK PICOZZI,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER, et al.,

11
Defendants.
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:15-cv-00816-JCM-PAL
ORDER

___________________________________
13
14

The plaintiff has submitted a motion for an extension of time, a motion for the court to

15

provide plaintiff names of officers and nurses, and a motion for an order stopping Clark County

16

Detention Center (“CCDC”) from tampering with his mail. (ECF No. 10, 11, 12).

17

The plaintiff presents his motions in one three page document that was docketed three

18

times: once for each of the three motions listed in the caption. In the body of the motion, the

19

plaintiff requests additional relief, such as an order for CCDC to stop charging the plaintiff for

20

legal copies, for inmate accounts to stop taking money from plaintiff for medical expenses from

21

University Medical Center, for CCDC to stop stealing the plaintiff’s subscription to the Las

22

Vegas Review Journal, and for a hearing to present grievances to the court in person. (ECF

23

No. 10, 11, 12 at 1-3).

24

Discussion

25

On November 25, 2015, this court entered a screening order allowing some of the

26

plaintiff’s claims to proceed, dismissing others with prejudice, and dismissing some without

27

prejudice, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 8 at 13-15). The court granted the plaintiff 30 days

28

to file an amended complaint and stated that it would dismiss the action without prejudice if

1

the plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint. (Id.). Plaintiff requests an extension

2

of 60 days to file his amended complaint. (ECF No. 10, 11, 12 at 1). The court grants the

3

plaintiff’s motion for an extension (ECF No. 10) in part by allowing the plaintiff 30 days from

4

the date of this order to file an amended complaint in compliance with the court’s November

5

25, 2015, order. (ECF No. 8). If the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint curing the

6

deficiencies as stated in the court’s original screening order, the action shall proceed on the

7

plaintiff’s First Amendment claim of denial of access to the courts against defendants Lee and

8

Cooper; the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim of excessive force against defendant Judd;

9

and the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference against defendant

10

Hightower.

11

The plaintiff filed a motion for the court to order CCDC to provide him with names of the

12

officers involved in the assault against him and all of the nurses involved in denying him

13

access to medical care. (ECF No. 11). This motion is deficient and, in any event, premature.

14

As the court stated in the original screening order,

15
16
17
18

“The CCDC is an inanimate building, not a person or entity subject to liability.
The law defines persons as including natural persons (i.e., human beings) as
well as corporations and political subdivisions. However, objects such as
buildings do not fit within this definition. Therefore, CCDC, a building, is not
subject to liability.” Allen v. Clark Cnty. Det. Ctr., 2:10-CV-00857-RJH, 2011
WL 197201, *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 20, 2011). As such, the CCDC is dismissed with
prejudice, as amendment would be futile.

19

(ECF No. 8 at 3, n.2). The plaintiff has filed a motion requesting action against a party that

20

has been dismissed with prejudice.

21

The court recognizes that there are situations “where the identity of alleged defendants

22

will not be known prior to the filing of a complaint.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th

23

Cir. 1980). “In such circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through

24

discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not

25

uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” Id. In the

26

plaintiff’s amended complaint, he may make use of “Doe” pleadings and then use discovery

27

to determine the identity of that defendant. The plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed, however,

28

where he provides no more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
2

1

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). As such, the plaintiff’s motion for the court to order CCDC to

2

provide him with the names of officers and nurses (ECF No. 11) is denied.

3

The plaintiff additionally filed a motion for the court to order CCDC to stop tampering

4

with his mail. (ECF No. 12). This motion is denied as it is presented against CCDC, a party

5

that has been dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, the traditional equitable criteria for

6

granting preliminary injunctive relief are: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2)

7

the possibility of irreparable injury to the plaintiff if injunctive relief is not granted; (3) a balance

8

of hardships favoring the plaintiff; and (4) advancement of the public interest. Los Angeles

9

Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200-01 (9th Cir.

10

1980). The moving party may meet its burden by demonstrating either (1) a combination of

11

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that serious

12

questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Id. The plaintiff has

13

not attempted to satisfy his burden to demonstrate a combination of probable success on the

14

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the

15

balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. As such, the plaintiff’s motion for the court to

16

order CCDC to stop tampering with his mail (ECF No. 12) is denied.

17

The additional motions the plaintiff raises within the body of his motion are denied. The

18

plaintiff raises claims against CCDC, a party that has been dismissed with prejudice. (See the

19

plaintiff’s assertion that CCDC is stealing his subscription to the Las Vegas Review Journal.

20

ECF No. 10, 11, 12 at 3).

21

demonstrating a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of

22

irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply

23

in his favor. (See the plaintiff’s request for the court to order inmate accounts to stop taking

24

his money. Id. at 2). Further, the plaintiff’s request for a hearing is denied.

25

Conclusion

Additionally, the plaintiff requests injunctive relief without

26

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for an extension of

27

time to file his amended complaint (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

28

The plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint in
3

1

compliance with the court’s November 25, 2015, order. (ECF No. 8). If the plaintiff fails to file

2

an amended complaint curing the deficiencies as stated in the court’s original screening order,

3

the action shall proceed on the plaintiff’s First Amendment claim of denial of access to the

4

courts against defendants Lee and Cooper; the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim of

5

excessive force against defendant Judd; and the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim of

6

deliberate indifference against defendant Hightower.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for the court to order CCDC to
provide him with the names of officers and nurses (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for the court to order CCDC to
stop tampering with his mail (ECF No. 12) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s request that the court file injunctive
orders against the CCDC and against inmate accounts is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s request for a hearing is DENIED.

14
15

January 20, 2016.
DATED: This _____ day of January, 2016.

16
17
18
19

_________________________________

20

United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4