Trumble v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 17

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 15 Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff shall file and serve the amended complaint. Defendants' 10 Motion to Dismiss is Denied as moot. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/21/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 ZACHARY L. TRUMBLE, 5 6 7 8 9 Plaintiff, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT and OFFICER CO TORRES, #8232, Case No. 2:16-cv-01619-APG-VCF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT (ECF Nos. 10, 15) Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Zachary Trumble was a pretrial detainee at Clark County Detention Center 12 (CCDC). He alleges he was assaulted by defendant correctional officers Torres and Fraser, who 13 are employees of defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) assigned to 14 work at the CCDC. He originally brought claims against Torres and LVMPD for (1) use of 15 excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 16 Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth 17 Amendment of the United States Constitution, (3) cruel and unusual punishment in violation of 18 the Nevada Constitution, (4) assault, and (5) battery. 19 LVMPD and Torres move to dismiss the first two claims as redundant because the 20 original complaint did not clarify whether Trumble is an inmate or a pretrial detainee. LVMPD 21 also moves to dismiss the constitutional claims against it because it cannot be liable under § 1983 22 based on respondeat superior and the original complaint contained no allegations of a policy, 23 custom, or practice that would render LVMPD liable. 24 In response, Trumble moves to amend his complaint to clarify that he is a pretrial 25 detainee, to drop his Eighth Amendment claim as a result, to add defendant Fraser, and to add 26 allegations that the use of excessive force was the result of LVMPD’s custom and practice of 27 using, and not punishing the use of, excessive force against pretrial detainees. 28 I grant the motion to amend because, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), 1 2 Trumble “may amend once as a matter of course” within 21 days after service of a responsive 3 pleading or motion. I deny the motion to dismiss, which is aimed at the original complaint, as 4 moot. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Zachary Trumble’s motion to amend (ECF 6 No. 15) is GRANTED. Pursuant to Local Rule 15-1(b), the plaintiff shall file and serve the 7 amended complaint. 8 9 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is DENIED as moot. DATED this 21st day of April, 2017. 11 12 13 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?