Tagle v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 125

ORDER directing Defendant's counsel to respond to ECF Nos. 122 Motion and 121 Motion by 9/11/2017 and Plaintiff shall have until 9/18/2017 to reply to Defendant's responses; Clerk directed to include a copy of Judge Du's Screening Order ECF No. 6 when serving this Order upon Plaintiff (e-served to P via LCC law library on 08/28/2017). Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 08/28/2017. (Attachments: # 1 ECF No. 6 Screening Order)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Case 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC Document 6 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

VICTOR TAGLE,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC

10

Plaintiff,

SCREENING ORDER

v.
11
STATE OF NEVADA et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of

15

Corrections (“NDOC”), has submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

16

1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1, 1-1.) The

17

matter of the filing fee shall be temporarily deferred. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s

18

civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

19

I.

SCREENING STANDARD

20

Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

21

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

22

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any

23

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

24

claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

25

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings, however,

26

must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

27

Cir. 1990). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

28

elements: (1) the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

Case 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC Document 6 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 11

1

States, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color

2

of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

3

In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, pursuant to the Prison

4

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a federal court must dismiss a prisoner’s claim, if “the

5

allegation of poverty is untrue,” or if the action “is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

6

claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who

7

is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of a complaint for failure

8

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure 12(b)(6), and the court applies the same standard under § 1915 when

10

reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or an amended complaint. When a court

11

dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the

12

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

13

the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v.

14

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

15

Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See

16

Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for

17

failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of

18

facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. See Morley v. Walker,

19

175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this determination, the court takes as true

20

all allegations of material fact stated in the complaint, and the court construes them in

21

the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957

22

(9th Cir. 1996). Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards

23

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980).

24

While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a

25

plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

26

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

27

action is insufficient. Id.

28

///
2

Case 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC Document 6 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 11

1

Additionally, a reviewing court should “begin by identifying pleadings [allegations]

2

that, because they are no more than mere conclusions, are not entitled to the

3

assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “While legal

4

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with

5

factual allegations.” Id. “When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should

6

assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an

7

entitlement to relief.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for

8

relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its

9

judicial experience and common sense.” Id.

10

Finally, all or part of a complaint filed by a prisoner may therefore be dismissed

11

sua sponte if the prisoner’s claims lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This

12

includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable (e.g., claims against

13

defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement of a legal interest which

14

clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g.,

15

fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28

16

(1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).

17

II.

SCREENING OF COMPLAINT

18

In the complaint, Plaintiff sues multiple defendants for events that took place

19

while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Ely State Prison (“ESP”). (ECF No. 1-1 at 1.) Plaintiff

20

sues Defendants State of Nevada, NDOC Director E.K. McDaniels, Warden Renee

21

Baker, Guard C. Rowly, and Guard Caldwell. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff appears to allege one

22

count and seeks monetary damages. (Id. at 1-6, 8.)

23

The complaint alleges the following: On March 3, 2016, prison officials told

24

Plaintiff to get ready to go to a hospital in Ely for x-rays. (Id. at 1). Under Rowly’s orders,

25

four CERT officers transported Plaintiff to the hospital. (Id.) Rowly had dragged Plaintiff

26

through the hallways to the transport van. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff had been wearing a “box,”

27

which had kept his hands and belly together, and shackles, which had caused Plaintiff

28

difficulty in walking. (Id.).
3

Case 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC Document 6 Filed 10/17/16 Page 4 of 11

1

Plaintiff went to the hospital. (Id. at 2-3.) On the way back to the transport van,

2

the CERT officers had dragged and pushed Plaintiff. (Id. at 3). Rowly and Caldwell each

3

had one of Plaintiff’s arms in their hands. (Id.) When Rowly opened the double-sided

4

cargo door, he pushed Plaintiff forward and hit Plaintiff with the other door “really hard

5

[on] the face and forearm.” (Id.) Plaintiff had asked Rowly why he had done that and

6

Rowly responded, “Fuck you.” (Id.) Rowly then picked Plaintiff up from the “box” and

7

threw Plaintiff into the second back seat. (Id.) While Plaintiff was on his belly on the

8

seat, Rowly hit Plaintiff in the head three or four times and held a gun to Plaintiff’s ribs.

9

(Id.) Caldwell had held a gun at Plaintiff’s head and had told Plaintiff to move so that he

10

could shoot Plaintiff. (Id.) After Rowly stopped hitting Plaintiff in the head, both officers

11

moved away and closed the doors. (Id.)

12

Those officers had verbally abused Plaintiff on the way back to ESP. (Id.) Rowly

13

had told Plaintiff, “Once we get to ESP, I’ll remove the chains from you and I’ll beat the

14

shit out of you.” (Id.) Plaintiff had asked Rowly what his problem was. (Id. at 4.) Caldwell

15

responded, “The fucking reason we’re doing it is because you’re the biggest piece of

16

shit in the whole world. You raped your 5-year-old daughter.” (Id.) Plaintiff replied, “What

17

the hell are you talking about?” and Rowley responded, “Yeah! That’s the reason you

18

piece of shit.” (Id.) Plaintiff told them to “get informed” before they did their “stupidities.”

19

(Id.)

20

When they returned to ESP, Rowly had dragged Plaintiff again and had made

21

Plaintiff’s ankles sore to the point where he could not walk. (Id.) Rowly had told Plaintiff

22

that he was going to remove Plaintiff’s handcuffs and shackles and had warned Plaintiff

23

that if he moved, Plaintiff would be sorry. (Id.) After Rowly had removed Plaintiff’s

24

chains, he told Plaintiff to undress and asked Plaintiff, “So, you want to fight me now?”

25

(Id.) Plaintiff responded, “You’re brave, 8 guards and you have the taser gun on your

26

hands.” (Id.) Rowly then kicked Plaintiff “really hard” on the ankles until another CERT

27

officer told Rowly to stop. (Id.)

28

///
4

Case 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC Document 6 Filed 10/17/16 Page 5 of 11

1

Rowly had ordered Plaintiff to “bend over, spread [his] cheeks, and cough.” (Id. at

2

5.) Plaintiff complied and Rowly ordered Plaintiff to “do it again and again” for over 12

3

times. (Id.) Rowly had ordered Plaintiff to get dressed. (Id.). Plaintiff told Rowly,

4

“[B]esides the physical abuse, you’re sexually harassing me.” (Id.) When Plaintiff bent

5

over to grab his clothes, Rowly kicked Plaintiff “really hard” on Plaintiff’s forearm. (Id.)

6

After Plaintiff had dressed, Rowly followed Plaintiff to Unit 2B. (Id.) At Unit 2B,

7

Caldwell told the officer in the bubble that Plaintiff had “snapped at [the officers], back at

8

the hospital.” (Id.) The bubble officer said, “You must have done something to him.” (Id.)

9

Caldwell replied, “No, we did not.” (Id.) The bubble officer asked if Plaintiff would be all

10

right. (Id.) Caldwell asked Plaintiff if he would be all right and Plaintiff replied, “As long

11

[as] you don’t hit me again in the face with the door, I’ll be all right.” (Id.)

12

On March 11, 2016, prison officials told Plaintiff that he could see a medical

13

provider. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff had thought that he was going to see the provider for his

14

throat. (Id.) However, when the doctor spoke to Plaintiff, he asked Plaintiff who had beat

15

Plaintiff up and why had the doctor not been notified right away? (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff

16

stated that he had reported the beating right away and did not know why the doctor had

17

not been notified. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff alleges assault and battery due to discrimination.

18

(Id. at 8.)

19

The Court interprets Plaintiff’s allegations as claim for excessive force. When a

20

prison official stands accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the cruel

21

and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment, the question turns on

22

whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or

23

maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. Hudson v. McMillian, 503

24

U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986)). In

25

determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it may also be

26

proper to consider factors such as the need for application of force, the relationship

27

between that need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by

28

the responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful
5

Case 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC Document 6 Filed 10/17/16 Page 6 of 11

1

response. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. Although an inmate need not have suffered serious

2

injury to bring an excessive force claim against a prison official, the Eighth

3

Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes from

4

constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force. Id. at 9-10.

5

The Court finds that Plaintiff states a colorable claim for excessive force against

6

Defendant Rowly. Based on the allegations, Rowly had dragged Plaintiff to the point

7

where he could not walk, had thrown Plaintiff into a van door, and had hit Plaintiff over

8

the head multiple times for, what appears to be, the purpose of maliciously and

9

sadistically causing harm. The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a colorable claim

10

against Caldwell. Based on the allegations, it does not appear that Caldwell had used

11

any force against Plaintiff for the purpose of maliciously and sadistically causing harm.

12

As such, the Court dismisses Defendant Caldwell from the case, with prejudice, as

13

amendment would be futile. Additionally, the Court dismisses Defendants McDaniels

14

and Baker from this case, without prejudice, because there are no allegations against

15

them in the complaint. The Court also dismisses Defendant State of Nevada, with

16

prejudice, from this case, as amendment would be futile. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of

17

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) (holding that states are not persons for purposes of

18

§ 1983).

19

III.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that a decision on the application to

20
21

CONCLUSION

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is deferred.

22

It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

23

It is further ordered that the excessive force claim will proceed against Defendant

24

Rowly.
It is further ordered that Defendants State of Nevada and Caldwell are dismissed,

25
26

with prejudice, from the case, as amendment would be futile.

27

///

28

///
6

Case 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC Document 6 Filed 10/17/16 Page 7 of 11

1

It is further ordered that Defendants McDaniels and Baker are dismissed, without

2

prejudice, from the case because there are no allegations against them in the

3

complaint.

4

It is further ordered that given the nature of the claim(s) that the Court has

5

permitted to proceed, this action is stayed for ninety (90) days to allow Plaintiff and

6

Defendant(s) an opportunity to settle their dispute before the $350.00 filing fee is paid,

7

an answer is filed, or the discovery process begins. During this ninety-day stay period,

8

no other pleadings or papers shall be filed in this case, and the parties shall not engage

9

in any discovery. The Court will refer this case to the Court’s Inmate Early Mediation

10

Program, and the Court will enter a subsequent order. Regardless, on or before ninety

11

(90) days from the date this order is entered, the Office of the Attorney General shall file

12

the report form attached to this order regarding the results of the 90-day stay, even if a

13

stipulation for dismissal is entered prior to the end of the 90-day stay. If the parties

14

proceed with this action, the Court will then issue an order setting a date for Defendants

15

to file an answer or other response. Following the filing of an answer, the Court will

16

issue a scheduling order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.

17

It is further ordered that “settlement” may or may not include payment of money

18

damages. It also may or may not include an agreement to resolve Plaintiff’s issues

19

differently. A compromise agreement is one in which neither party is completely

20

satisfied with the result, but both have given something up and both have obtained

21

something in return.

22

It is further ordered that if the case does not settle, Plaintiff will be required to pay

23

the full $350.00 filing fee. This fee cannot be waived. If Plaintiff is allowed to proceed in

24

forma pauperis, the fee will be paid in installments from his prison trust account. 28

25

U.S.C. § 1915(b). If Plaintiff is not allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, the $350.00

26

will be due immediately.

27

It is further ordered that if any party seeks to have this case excluded from the

28

inmate mediation program, that party shall file a “motion to exclude case from
7

Case 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC Document 6 Filed 10/17/16 Page 8 of 11

1

mediation” on or before twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order. The

2

responding party shall have seven (7) days to file a response. No reply shall be filed.

3

Thereafter, the Court will issue an order, set the matter for hearing, or both.

4

It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court electronically serve a copy of this

5

order and a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint on the Office of the Attorney General of the

6

State of Nevada, attention Kat Howe.

7

It is further ordered that the Attorney General’s Office advise the Court within

8

twenty-one (21) days of the date of the entry of this order whether it will enter a limited

9

notice of appearance on behalf of Defendants for the purpose of settlement. No

10

defenses or objections, including lack of service, shall be waived as a result of the filing

11

of the limited notice of appearance.

12
13

DATED THIS 17th day of October 2016.

14
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8

Case 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC Document 6 Filed 10/17/16 Page 9 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

VICTOR TAGLE,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL RE RESULTS OF
THE 90-DAY STAY

STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

NOTE: ONLY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL FILE THIS
FORM. THE INMATE PLAINTIFF SHALL NOT FILE THIS FORM.

16

On ________________ [the date of the issuance of the screening order], the

17

Court issued its screening order stating that it had conducted its screening pursuant to

18

28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and that certain specified claims in this case would proceed. The

19

Court ordered the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada to file a report

20

ninety (90) days after the date of the entry of the Court’s screening order to indicate the

21

status of the case at the end of the 90-day stay. By filing this form, the Office of the

22

Attorney General hereby complies.

23

REPORT FORM

24

[Identify which of the following two situations (identified in bold type) describes the case,
and follow the instructions corresponding to the proper statement.]

25
26
27
28

Situation One: Mediated Case: The case was assigned to mediation by a courtappointed mediator during the 90-day stay. [If this statement is accurate, check
ONE of the six statements below and fill in any additional information as required, then
proceed to the signature block.]

Case 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC Document 6 Filed 10/17/16 Page 10 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

____ A mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held on
_______________ [enter date], and as of this date, the parties have
reached a settlement, even if paperwork to memorialize the settlement
remains to be completed. (If this box is checked, the parties are on notice
that they must SEPARATELY file either a contemporaneous stipulation of
dismissal or a motion requesting that the Court continue the stay in the
case until a specified date upon which they will file a stipulation of
dismissal.)
____ A mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held on
________________ [enter date], and as of this date, the parties have not
reached a settlement. The Office of the Attorney General therefore
informs the Court of its intent to proceed with this action.
____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the
90-day stay, but the parties have nevertheless settled the case. (If this
box is checked, the parties are on notice that they must SEPARATELY file
a contemporaneous stipulation of dismissal or a motion requesting that the
Court continue the stay in this case until a specified date upon which they
will file a stipulation of dismissal.)
____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the
90-day stay, but one is currently scheduled for ________________ [enter
date].
____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the
90-day stay, and as of this date, no date certain has been scheduled for
such a session.
____ None of the above five statements describes the status of this case.
Contemporaneously with the filing of this report, the Office of the Attorney
General of the State of Nevada is filing a separate document detailing the
status of this case.

18

*****

19

Situation Two: Informal Settlement Discussions Case: The case was NOT
assigned to mediation with a court-appointed mediator during the 90-day stay;
rather, the parties were encouraged to engage in informal settlement
negotiations. [If this statement is accurate, check ONE of the four statements below
and fill in any additional information as required, then proceed to the signature block.]

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

____ The parties engaged in settlement discussions and as of this date, the
parties have reached a settlement, even if the paperwork to memorialize
the settlement remains to be completed. (If this box is checked, the
parties are on notice that they must SEPARATELY file either a
contemporaneous stipulation of dismissal or a motion requesting that the
Court continue the stay in this case until a specified date upon which they
will file a stipulation of dismissal.)
____ The parties engaged in settlement discussions and as of this date, the
parties have not reached a settlement. The Office of the Attorney General
therefore informs the Court of its intent to proceed with this action.

28
2

Case 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC Document 6 Filed 10/17/16 Page 11 of 11

1
2
3
4
5

____ The parties have not engaged in settlement discussions and as of this
date, the parties have not reached a settlement. The Office of the
Attorney General therefore informs the Court of its intent to proceed with
this action.
____ None of the above three statements fully describes the status of this case.
Contemporaneously with the filing of this report, the Office of the Attorney
General of the State of Nevada is filing a separate document detailing the
status of this case.

6

Submitted this _______ day of __________________, ______ by:

7

Attorney Name: ________________________
Print

__________________________
Signature

Address:

__________________________

Phone: ____________________

__________________________

Email: _____________________

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3