Sykes v. Henderson Police Dep't

• Decision Date: 12 September 2022
• Docket Number: 2:22-cv-00956-JAD-EJY
• Parties: MARK CLIFFORD SYKES, Plaintiff, v. HENDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

MARK CLIFFORD SYKES, Plaintiff,
v.
HENDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-00956-JAD-EJY

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 12, 2022

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH, UNITED STATES MAGWTRATE JUDGE.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 1-2.

I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff, a non-inmate, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application is complete, and Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status.

II. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT

Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting id.).

1

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that on June 17, 2021, he was sitting in Morrell Park-located at 500 Harris Street in Henderson, Nevada-with an associate. ECF No. 1-2 at 4. The two men were approached by a pair of Henderson Police Department (“HPD”) officers who were investigating a robbery that occurred in the vicinity of where Plaintiff and his associate were sitting. Id. Following a series of verbal exchanges among Plaintiff, the HPD officers, and a later-arriving HPD sergeant, Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs and arrested on the charge of Obstructing a Public Officer. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff was later found not guilty on that charge and has now filed this civil action that springs from the June 17, 2021 events. Id. at 6.

Plaintiff alleges that during the interaction with the HPD officers, several of his constitutional and civil rights were violated. Id. at 2-3. As a result, Plaintiff states he is entitled to numerous forms of relief, including a favorable judgment, damages, attorney's fees, and mandates to the HPD regarding its policies and procedures. Id. at 26. Plaintiff lists the following as Defendants: Officer C. Watts (individual capacity), Officer B. Shaffer (individual capacity), Sergeant K. Abernathy (individual capacity), Chief of Police Thedrick Andres (individual capacity), “all Unknown Doe's 1-12,000 et al.,” and “the State of Nevada of the Henderson Police Department of Clark County Nevada (individual and official capacities).” Id. at 2.

B. The Court Recommends Dismissing Plaintiff's Claims Against the State of Nevada With Prejudice as Amendment is Futile.

The Eleventh Amendment bars citizens from suing a state. U.S. CONST. amend. XI. The United States Supreme Court holds that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not constitute an abrogation of a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 338-40 (1979). Absent waiver, a state is not subject to suit under Section 1983. Id.; see also Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978). The State of Nevada has declined to waive its immunity to suit under the Eleventh Amendment. NRS 41.031(3). To the extent Plaintiff intends to seek money damages from the State of Nevada, he is constitutionally barred from doing so. Thus, claims against the State of Nevada are recommended for dismissal with prejudice.

2

C. The Court Recommends Dismissing all Claims Against “all Unknown Doe's 112,000 et al.” Without Prejudice.

As a general rule, pleading fictitious or doe defendants is improper in federal court. See Bogan v. Keene Corp., 852 F.2d 1238, 1239 (9th Cir. 1988). This is because “[t]here is no provision in the Federal Statutes or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for use of fictitious parties.” Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Co., 446 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 1970); see also McMillan v. Department of the Interior, 907 F.Supp. 322 (D. Nev. 1995). “If there are unknown persons or entities, whose role is known, that fact should be expressed in the complaint, but it is unnecessary and improper to include “Doe” parties in the pleadings.” Graziose v. American Home Products Corp., 202 F.R.D. 638, 643 (D. Nev. 2001).

Here, Plaintiff's Complaint pleads no allegation that any unidentified state actor (that is, a Doe Defendant) was involved in the events underlying his Complaint. There are no factual allegations at all that include a Doe Defendant as participating in or otherwise causing Plaintiff some form of harm. Rather, Plaintiff lists Doe Defendants in his caption and again in the headers of Count V alleging civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1) and (3), as well as Count VIII alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Listing a “Doe” party in the caption of a complaint or header identifying a cause of action does not state a claim against an unknown party whose role is known, but specific identity is unknown. Indeed, “a pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief.” Sherrell v. Bank of Am., N.A., Case No. CV F 11-1785-LJO (JLT), 2011 WL 6749765, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2011). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complainant to plead sufficient facts to give a defendant fair notice of the claims against him and the grounds upon which they rest. Yamaguchi v. United States Department of Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). However, because Plaintiff may be able to amend his Complaint by pleading facts in which Doe Defendants were involved and therefore state a claim against such Defendants, the Court recommends dismissing Plaintiffs present claims against such Defendants without prejudice and with leave to amend.

3

D. The Court Recommends Dismissing all Claims Against Chief of Police Thedrick Andres Without Prejudice.

A defendant cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely based on supervisory responsibility or position. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 n.58 (1978). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to ... § 1983 suits, [Plaintiff] must plead that each governmentofficial defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; see also Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (even pro se plaintiffs must “allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in” to state a claim).

Plaintiff fails to mention Chief Andres anywhere in his pleading except on the second page of his Complaint along with other listed Defendants. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. Plaintiff alleges no facts that tie Chief Andres to any conduct violative of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to plead that Chief Andres played any role in the events underlying his Complaint. However, the Court finds it is possible for Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to include facts necessary to state a claim against Chief Andres. Therefore, the Court recommends dismissal of claims against this Defendant without prejudice.

E. The Court Recommends Dismissing Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Claims Asserted Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth...