Holmes v. The State of Nevada

Filing 3

ORDER granting 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff will not be required to pay an initial installment fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Re form Act, the Clark County Detention Center will forward payments from the account of David Holmes, Inmate No. 1210144, to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding months deposits (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of Court is also kindly directed to send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Clark County Dete ntion Center at 330 S. Casino Center Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89101. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file Plaintiffs complaint ECF No. 1 -1 on the docket but shall not issue summons. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at the complaint ECF No. 1 -1 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until September 30, 2024, to file an amended complaint if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 8/29/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF cc Chief of Inmate Services - CAH)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6

***
David Holmes,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9

Case No. 2:24-cv-01525-APG-DJA

v.

Order

State of Nevada,
Defendant.

10

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested

11
12

authority to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff also submitted a complaint. (ECF

13

No. 1-1). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s application is complete, it grants the application

14

to proceed in forma pauperis. However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does

15

not properly assert sufficient facts, it dismisses the complaint with leave to amend.

16

I.

In forma pauperis application.
Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has shown an

17
18

inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed

19

in forma pauperis will be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court will now review

20

Plaintiff’s complaint.

21

II.

22

Legal standard for screening.
Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the

23

complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is

24

legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

25

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

26

When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend

27

the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the

28

1

complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70

2

F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

3

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a

4

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule

5

12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d

6

719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of

7

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp.

8

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual

9

allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the

10

elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v.

11

Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations

12

contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal,

13

556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory

14

allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the

15

line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

16

Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings

17

drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal

18

construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal).

19

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by

20

the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). Under 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the

22

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Cases “arise under” federal law either when

23

federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law

24

necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277

25

F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is based on the

26

“well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a

27

federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

28

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal
Page 2 of 5

1

district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in

2

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of

3

different states.” Generally speaking, diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is “complete

4

diversity” among the parties; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each

5

of the defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).

6

III.

Screening the complaint.
Plaintiff sues Defendant the State of Nevada, alleging violations of various Constitutional

7
8

rights and federal civil rights statutes. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1). Plaintiff alleges that, on January 29,

9

2020, North Las Vegas Police Department officers attacked him, leaving him with life threatening

10

injuries. (Id. at 5-7). He asserts that the State of Nevada is responsible for not training the

11

officers, for not ensuring that the Dotty’s Casino outside of which officers assaulted him was safe,

12

and for not investigating the attack. (Id.). However, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant fail

13

because they do not provide sufficient factual detail and because it appears that they are barred by

14

the statute of limitations. 1
First, Plaintiff’s allegations primarily describe officers’ actions in assaulting him. But he

15
16

does not sue those officers in this lawsuit. Otherwise, his allegations against Defendant are

17

conclusory. This is not sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second, Plaintiff’s claims appear to be barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s

18
19

claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir.

20

1991) (laying out the elements of a § 1983 claim, including that the plaintiff allege a violation of

21

rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute by a person acting under color of

22

state law). Plaintiff also invokes 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. 2 The statute of limitations for

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s complaint also appears to raise sovereign immunity concerns because “[w]ith respect
to federal court cases, the State of Nevada does not waive its sovereign immunity.” Johnson v.
Nevada Department of Corrections Medical Department, No. 3:22-cv-00552-MMD-CLB, 2023
WL 7412833, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 24, 2023). However, because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s
complaint on statute of limitations grounds and for alleging only conclusory allegations, the Court
does not reach the issue of sovereign immunity.
2

Although Plaintiff also brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, that statute does not provide a
separate cause of action. Instead, it provides that the Court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees
Page 3 of 5

1

claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the state limitations period for personal injury claims,

2

which in Nevada, is two years. See Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir. 1989) (per

3

curiam) (citing Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 61, 279-80 (1985)); Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.190(4)(e).

4

Claims brought under § 1985 are likewise governed by the statute of limitations for personal

5

injury claims and, as such, the statute of limitations for such claims is two years. McDougal v.

6

County of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1991). Unlike 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985,

7

the statute of limitations for claims predicated on 42 U.S.C. § 1986 originates within the statute

8

itself. Actions under this statute “must be commenced within one year after the cause of action

9

has accrued.” 42 U.S.C. § 1986; Bledsoe v. City of Stockton Police Dept, No. 2:20-cv-01654-

10

KJM-KJN PS, 2020 WL 5203438, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2020), report and recommendation

11

adopted, No. 2:20-cv-01654-KJM-KJN PS, 2020 WL 5847142 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020).

12

Plaintiff does not allege when Defendant’s actions took place. But if they were relatively

13

soon after the January 29, 2020 attack, then his claims are over four years old and barred by the

14

applicable statutes of limitation. Because Plaintiff does not allege when the actions about which

15

he complains took place and, if his claims are time barred, whether tolling applies, the Court

16

cannot determine if he states a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court thus dismisses

17

Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend.

18
19

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

20

pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. Plaintiff will not be required to pay an initial installment fee.

21

Nevertheless, the full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the

22

Prison Litigation Reform Act. The movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to

23

conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or the giving of security therefor.

24
25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Clark County Detention Center will forward payments from the

26
27
28

to the prevailing party in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Merry v. Sandoval, No. 3:16-cv00164-MMD-WGC, 2019 WL 6332159, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 8, 2019).
Page 4 of 5

1

account of David Holmes, Inmate No. 1210144, to the Clerk of the United States District Court,

2

District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s deposits (in months that the account exceeds

3

$10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of Court is kindly

4

directed to send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk of

5

Court is also kindly directed to send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate

6

Services for the Clark County Detention Center at 330 S. Casino Center Blvd., Las Vegas, NV

7

89101.

8
9
10
11
12
13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, even if this action is dismissed, or is otherwise
unsuccessful, the full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file Plaintiff’s
complaint (ECF No. 1-1) on the docket but shall not issue summons.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without

14

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend.

15

Plaintiff will have until September 30, 2024, to file an amended complaint if the noted

16

deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed

17

that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended

18

complaint complete. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original

19

complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference

20

to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no

21

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

22

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

23

Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case.

24
25

DATED: August 29, 2024

26
27
28

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 5 of 5