Eltizam v. City of Las Vegas et al

Filing 33

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 27 defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The clerk of court shall enter judgment in favor of defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and against plaintiff Nick M. Elitzam. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/10/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 NICK M. ELITZAM, 5 6 7 8 9 10 Case No. 2:16-cv-01178-APG-CWH Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS and LAS VEGAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. (ECF No. 27) Plaintiff Nick Elitzam alleges that the defendants gave him a ticket for disturbing the 11 peace and he was subsequently put in jail for four months and six days. ECF No. 4 at 4. Elitzam 12 asserts he was treated differently than his neighbors (who made loud noises in the early morning 13 hours but were not similarly arrested) because of racial animus against him. Id. at 6-7. He further 14 alleges that while in jail, he was subjected to freezing temperatures and was denied a second 15 blanket and toilet paper due to racial animus. Id. at 5. 16 Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) moves for summary 17 judgment, arguing that Elitzam’s claims against LVMPD related to the tickets for disturbing the 18 peace and the related convictions and sentences are barred under Heck v. Humphrey. Elitzam 19 responds that he wants “scientific evidence” supporting his prior conviction. ECF No. 29 at 1. He 20 also asserts that his convictions were based on lies from his neighbors, who he contends are drug 21 dealers and burglars with racial animus against him. Id. He also asserts he can prove that his 22 convictions were illegal and the police did not have evidence to prove his guilt. Id. at 2. He seeks 23 as relief, among other things, the “cleaning of my record.” Id. at 6. 24 Under the rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey, if a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor 25 “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be 26 dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been 27 invalidated.” 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Elitzam’s civil claims against LVMPD necessarily 28 1 challenge his criminal convictions and sentences for disturbing the peace and Elitzam has not 2 shown those convictions or sentences have been invalidated. Consequently, his claims against 3 LVMPD are barred and I grant LVMPD’s motion for summary judgment.1 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 5 Department’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED. The clerk of court 6 shall enter judgment in favor of defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and against 7 plaintiff Nick M. Elitzam. 8 DATED this 10th day of May, 2017. 9 10 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Unlike defendant City of Las Vegas, Elitzam does not assert claims against LVMPD other than ones that challenge his convictions and sentences. See ECF No. 25. Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?