Stilwell v. Clark Cnty.
| Decision Date | 26 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:11-cv-01549-RFB-VCF |
| Parties | DAVID ROY STILWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLARK COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
This matter is before the Court on several motions to dismiss filed by Defendants, who are various Nevada municipalities, law enforcement agencies, and law enforcement officers. In this case, Plaintiffs, a group of motorcycle riders residing in Nevada, challenge the enforcement of a Nevada statute governing the use of motorcycle helmets, N.R.S. 486.231 (the "Helmet Law"). Plaintiffs allege that the entity and supervisory Defendants failed to train the individual officers in how to identify helmets that do or do not comply with the Helmet Law and how to collect the evidence necessary to support a citation for violating that law. As a result, Plaintiffs allege, the officers engaged in a pattern and practice of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the Helmet Law by issuing citations for violations of that law without probable cause. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for violation of their constitutional rights and that further amendment would be futile. Plaintiffs' claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 1) on September 27, 2011. The original Complaint named Clark County, the City of Boulder City, the City of North Las Vegas, the City of Henderson, the City of Mesquite, and the City of Las Vegas as defendants. In their original Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted four causes of action: violation of the Fourth Amendment, violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Defendants each moved to dismiss the Complaint.
On February 21, 2012, following oral argument, the Court issued a written order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 42. The Court denied leave to amend, finding that Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint, which was filed in connection with their oppositions to the motions to dismiss, suffered from the same deficiencies as the original complaint and therefore demonstrated that further amendment would be futile. Id. On November 27, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the Court's Order granting the motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings. ECF No. 56. The Ninth Circuit held that while the Court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint, it abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. Id. The Ninth Circuit found that the Court did not provide specific reasons for its denial of leave to amend and that its decision to do so was contrary to the Court's previous assurances to Plaintiffs at oral argument that they would be granted leave to amend and were not "married" to their proposed first amended complaint. Id.
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") on January 31, 2014. ECF No. 60. In the FAC, Plaintiffs name the following additional Defendants: the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ("LVMPD"); the Nevada Highway Patrol ("NHP"); the directors and chiefs of police for NHP, Clark County, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, Henderson, and Mesquite; and various individual police officers employed by LVMPD, NHP, and the Boulder City and North Las Vegas police departments. Id. In addition, Plaintiffs abandoned their original four claims in favor of three causes of action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id.
On March 18, 2014, NHP and the two NHP officers named in the FAC (collectively, the "NHP Defendants") moved to dismiss the claims alleged against them, arguing that NHP is not a proper person subject to liability under Section 1983 and that the NHP officers are entitled toqualified immunity. ECF No. 102. On March 20, 2014, the City of Henderson and Patrick E. Moers, in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Henderson (collectively, the "Henderson Defendants") moved to dismiss the claims alleged against them for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 103. On March 21, 2014, the remaining Defendants moved to dismiss the claims alleged against them on several bases. ECF No. 106.
In their FAC, Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Nevada's Helmet Law, codified at N.R.S. 486.231, was enacted in 1971 and required the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety to adopt standards for protective headgear and glasses, goggles, or face shields to be worn by motorcycle drivers and passengers. The Department did not expressly adopt any such standards until 1994, when it adopted the regulations contained in 49 C.F.R. § 571.218, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration's ("NHTSA") Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 (the "NHTSA Standard"). The NHTSA Standard establishes a process whereby a manufacturer can certify, using the "DOT" symbol and other labels, that the helmet conforms to the applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not prescribe the size, weight, or minimum head coverage that a helmet must have, nor does it require helmets to be tested before being sold. However, when helmets are tested, the NHTSA Standard requires that they meet certain requirements with respect to impact, penetration, retention, configuration, peripheral vision/brow opening, and labeling in order to be found in compliance.
In 2004, NHTSA published a tri-fold flyer entitled "How to Identify Unsafe Motorcycle Helmets." The flyer does not definitively list which helmets do not meet the NHTSA Standard, but rather provides information and guidance on helmet features that may indicate whether a given helmet meets the standard.
In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that all citations issued to motorcycle drivers between 1971 and 1994, when the Department adopted specific standards for motorcycle helmets, are "unfounded as a matter of law." In addition, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have failed to provide any training to their officers on any aspect of the NHTSA Standard. Plaintiffs allege aseries of incidents between February 2009 and March 2013 in which LVMPD, NHP, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, and Mesquite police officers stopped individual Plaintiffs while they were riding their motorcycles. During these stops, the officers either questioned Plaintiffs regarding their helmets or issued citations for failing to wear helmets or wearing helmets that were not certified with the DOT label. Plaintiffs allege that with respect to the stops that resulted in the issuance of a helmet ticket, the officers involved made no attempt to gather evidence, such as by notating the year, make, model, or size of the helmet. The majority of these citations were dismissed in court.
Plaintiffs allege three causes of action in the FAC arising out of this series of incidents. The first is a municipal liability claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), against Clark County, Boulder City, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Mesquite, Las Vegas, LVMP, and NHP (collectively, the "Entity Defendants"). The second is a Section 1983 supervisory liability claim asserted against Defendants Wright, Gillespie, Conger, Moers, Chronister, and Tanner (collectively, the "Supervisory Defendants"). The remaining defendants are individual law enforcement officers (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"). With respect to the first and second causes of action, Plaintiffs assert two separate theories of liability against the Entity and Supervisory Defendants. First, Plaintiffs allege that these Defendants knew and approved of the acts of the Individual Defendants, who by stopping and issuing citations to Plaintiffs violated Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, and citation without probable cause. Due to this ratification, Plaintiffs also allege that the Individual Defendants' actions represent official policy and custom of the Entity Defendants. Second, Plaintiffs allege that the Entity and Supervisory Defendants failed to train their officers in the NHTSA Standard, how to determine compliance or noncompliance with that standard, or how to collect the evidence necessary to support a citation for violation of the Helmet Law. This failure to train led to the Individual Defendants' violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights described above.
Plaintiffs' third cause of action is asserted against the Individual Defendants, all of whom are law enforcement officers employed by the Entity Defendants and supervised by theSupervisory Defendants. In their third cause of action, also brought under Section 1983, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, and citation without probable cause by detaining them, issuing them citations for violation of the Helmet Law, and participating in the ensuing prosecutions without probable cause. Plaintiffs further allege that these Defendants "have an ongoing pattern and practice of engaging in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the [NHTSA] Standard as a pretext for invading the liberties and civil rights of the [Plaintiffs], with no demonstrated concern for [their] safety or civil rights . . . ." FAC ¶ 117, ECF No. 60.
A pleading must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A defendant may move to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "[a]ll well-pleaded allegations of material fact in the complaint are accepted as true and are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Faulkner v. ADT...
To continue reading
Request your trial