Nephi S Oliva V Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Et Al

Key Facts

Issues

• The court must determine whether the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim should be dismissed with prejudice because the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government, and the federal government is not a defendant in this case.
• The court must determine which defendants should be dismissed from the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims and which should proceed. The court dismisses claims against CCSO, Undersheriff Orozco, and Sergeant Fink without prejudice because the plaintiff does not allege denial of notice or opportunity to be heard, but allows the claim to proceed against LVMPD and NVSCA based on allegations of color of state law.

Holdings

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause requires that before the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property, it must give the person notice and an opportunity to be heard. To state a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) a liberty or property interest protected by the Constitution; (2) deprivation of the interest by the government; and (3) lack of process. The court found that Plaintiff did not allege that Defendants denied him a hearing or opportunity to appear in person or have legal representation.
• The Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim was dismissed with prejudice because the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government, and the federal government is not a defendant here. The court recommended dismissing this claim entirely as it cannot be applied to state actors.
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a method for enforcing constitutional rights when defendants act under color of state law and deprive citizens of rights secured by the Constitution. Municipalities are persons subject to liability under § 1983. Private parties may be liable if there is a close nexus between the State and the challenged action, such as when a nominally private actor is controlled by or has been delegated a public function by the State.
• Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), courts must screen complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, identifying cognizable claims and dismissing frivolous or malicious claims that fail to state a claim. The standard incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and requires sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim. Pro se complaints are liberally construed, and dismissal occurs only if it appears beyond doubt no set of facts could support the claim.

Precedent Name

• Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York
• Crowe v. Cty. of San Diego
• Nordstrom v. Ryan
• Clement v. City of Glendale
• Wright v. Riveland
• Williams v. California
• Ashcroft v. Iqbal
• Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev.
• Santa Ana Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Santa Ana
• Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

Cited Statute

• 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
• Fifth Amendment
• 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
• Fourteenth Amendment
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Judge Name

Passage Text

• Second, this Court dismisses Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against Defendants CCSO, Undersheriff Orozco, and Sergeant Fink without prejudice because Plaintiff does not allege that these Defendants denied him notice or an opportunity to be heard. Though Undersheriff Orozco signed the letter from NVSCA and Sergeant Fink signed the letter from LVMPD, Plaintiff does not allege that they denied him a hearing or the opportunity to appear in person or have legal representation. The act of sending a letter is not a deprivation of due process. Further, because Plaintiff does not allege that Undersheriff Orozco denied him due process, it makes no difference whether CCSO failed to properly train and supervise him. So, Plaintiff does not allege a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against CCSO either. Given Plaintiff's allegations, it appears NVSCA and LVMPD are the proper defendants here.
• First, this Court recommends that Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim be dismissed with prejudice because the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government, and the federal government is not a defendant here. See Santa Ana Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Santa Ana, 723 F. App'x 399, 402 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008)).
• Liberally construing Plaintiff's amended complaint, this Court finds that he has sufficiently alleged a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against LVMPD and NVSCA. LVMPD is subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978)). Here, Plaintiff alleges that LVMPD revoked his license without a hearing. As to NVSCA, Plaintiff alleges a close nexus between it and LVMPD such that the challenged action may be fairly treated as that of the State itself for screening purposes. See Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1150 (9th Cir. 2011). He alleges that LVMPD delegated its authority to NVSCA, that it adopted NVSCA's modified training standards, that it allowed NVSCA's unofficial recommendation that Plaintiff's license be revoked to stand as an official revocation, and that Undersheriff Orozco testified that NVSCA had full authority to revoke Plaintiff's license. ECF No. 3 at 5-7. Taking these allegations as true, and liberally construing the amended complaint, this Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts that NVSCA acted under color of state law. Accordingly, Plaintiff may proceed with his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against Defendants LVMPD and NVSCA.