Davis v. Humble et al, No. 2:2007cv01643 - Document 63 (D. Nev. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 54 Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/9/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
2 <!J;)' - S zt -''J 3 4 U.'. 'l'î '.k . z2 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 VIRGINIA DAVIS, 10 2:07-CV-1643-RCJ-(LRL) Plaintiff, O RDER 11 v. 12 CO LLEEN HUM BLE ,Officer KAKU,LAS VEGAS M ETROPOLITAN POLICE 13 D EPARTM ENT, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Thisisaj 1983actionagainstDefendantsOfficersHumbleand Kakuand LasVegas 18 MetropolitanPoliceDepartment('dl-asvegasMetro,''collectively,'dDefendants')forexcessive 19 force. Presently before the Coud is Defendants'Motion forSummary Judgment(#54), Davis v. Humble et al Doc. 63 20 PlaintiffVirgina Davis (ddplaintifr'),acting pro se,filed an opposition (#59)and Defendants 21 replied(//60).TheCoud heldahearingonMay10,2010.Becausetheo#icershavequalified 22 immunity and Las Vegas Metro may notbe held vicariously Iiable,the Coud now G RANTS 23 Defendants'MotionforSummaryJudgment(//54). 24 1. Background 25 O n Decem ber 14,2005,officers ofLas Vegas M etro arrested Plaintifffordriving w ithouta 26 valid driver's Iicense. Plaintiffw as a so-year-old wom an atthe tim e ofherarrest.l 27 28 Defendants incorrectly calculate Plaintiff's age to bq 59. Plaintiffwas born on April 13,1955.(Def.'sMot.forSumm.J.(#54)Ex.A 3:12-18),Thlsmjkesheq50yqarsoIdatthe tim e ofherarrestand 54 years oId atthe tim e Defendants subm ltted thelrm otlon. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 (SeeDef.'sMot.forSumm.J.(//54)Ex.A 3:12-18).Plaintiffsaccountoftheeventsfollowing 2 herarrestisasfollows. Plaintiffwas crying when she arrived atthe Clark County Detention 3 Center(the 'CCDC'),(/d.at37:9-22).O#icerHumblecalled Plaintiffoverto herandasked 4 Plaintiffwhy she was crying. (/d.at37:24-38:7). Plaintiffexplained thatshe was upset 5 because hermotherhad a massive heartattack and she feltashamed forputting herselfin 6 apositionwhereshe mightmissherflightto see hermother. (Id.at37:8-22). 7 OfficerHumblethenaskedPlaintiffifshewaswearingawig.(Id.at39:1).Plaintifftold 8 9 10 11 12 OfficerHumble thatshe was not, (Id.at39:1-2). OfficerHumble said thatPlaintiffwas wearing a wig and pulled atPlaintifrs hair. (/d.at39:2-3). Plainti# thenadmittedthatshe waswearing a wig. Lld.at39:3-4). OfficerHumble ordered Plaintiffto take itoff. (/d.at 39:4-5),Plainti; askedifshehadto removerherwig.(/d.at39:5).O#icerHumbleadopted anaggressive demeanorandtoldPlaintifftotake offhersweaterand wig.(/d.at39:6-14). 13 Plaintiffremoved herwig.(/d.at39:14). 14 Initially,Plainti: testified thatOfficerHumble ordered herto stand up. W hen Plainti; 15 stood up,OficerHumble pushed herback down. Plaintiffkeptstanding back up and O#icer 16 Humblekaptpushing herbackdown. (ld.at39:15-19).But,later,Plaintifftestifiedthather 17 m em ory was ''fuzzy''as to whatOfficer Hum ble ordered her to do and thatshe w as ''pretty 18 sure''OfficerHumble ordered hertositdown.(Id.at64:5-65:18),OfficerHumble swore at 19 Plaintiffand threatened to Iose herinjail,(/d.at39:20-W0:9). 20 OfficerHumble thenordered Plaintiffto take offhershoesand pickthem up,(Id.at 21 40:10-11;66:13-67:17).Plaintiffbentdowntotakeoffhershoes,then Iooked upatOfficer 22 Humble and asked,''ma'am,doyou havetotalktome Iikethis?''(Id.at40:11-13).Plaintiff 23 tookoffhershoes and then asked,' dma'am,do Ireally have to take offmyshoes?''(/d.at 24 40:21-25). Plainti; admits thatshe did notcomplywith OfficerHumble's firstrequestto 25 remove hershoes,butdid complywiththesecond request.(id.at66:4-12).Plaintiffdid not 26 complywith OfficerHumble'srequestto pickup hershoes. (/d.at67:11-17). 27 OfficerHumblewalked awayand Plaintiffcontinuedto cl 'y,placing herhead in herlap, 28 (Id.at40:25-41:5). PlaintiffthenfeltOfficerHumbleandotherofficers approachher,place theirhands on herhands and head,push herhead down,pullherhands up in the air,and 2 l twistherarms back.(Id.at41:3-16).The officersthenasked Plaintiffto pickup hershoes 2 again,butshe could notbecause ofthe pain in herarm . She tried to pick them up butkept 3 4 5 6 7 dropping them. (Id.at66:13-21). Theofficers marched herbackto ajailcelland swore ather.(Id.at41:17-d2:1),At some point,theofficersplacedPlaintil inhandcuffs.(Seeid.at42:7-15).Plainti; believed herarm wassprained.(Id.at56:15-18). Herneckwasalso in pain. (Id.at61:8-62:21). Plainti;didnotcomplain ofherinjuryto OfficerHumble.(Def.'s Mot.forSumm.J,(#54)Ex. 8 C at$ 10).PlaintiffaskedaIInightIongformedicaltreatment.The nextday,anursesaw her. 9 (Id.at56:19-57:5).PlaintiffonlycomplainedofpaininandIimitedmovementofherrightarm, 10 (/d.at57:17-58:15).Plaintiffwasreleasedfrom jailtwodaysIater.(Id.at68:12-16). ll O n January 1O,2008,Plaintiff,acting pro se,filed a complaintwith this Courtagainst 12 Defendants.Sheallegesaclaim under42U.S.C.5 1983forviolationsofherrightsunderthe 13 Eightand FourteenthAmendments.She allegesthatthe use offorceon heratthe CcDc was 14 crueland unusualpunishm entand thatDefendants acted with deliberate indifference to her 15 medicalneeds.SheadsoallegesthatOfficersHumbleand Kakuactedwithmalice.(Compl. 16 (#6)), 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Summaryjudgment'dshouldberendered ifthe pleadings,thediscoveryanddisclosure 19 materialson file,and any affidavitsshow thatthere isno genuine issue asto any materialfact 20 andthatthe movantisentitledtojudgmentasa matterofIaw.' Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c)(2).The 21 moving party bears the burden ofdemonstrating the absence ofa genuine issue ofmaterial 22 factand the materialIodged by the moving party mustbe viewed in the lightmostfavorable 23 tothenonmovingparty.Adickesv.S.H.Kress& Co.,398 U.S.144,157(1970).''(A)material 24 issue offactis one thataffectsthe outcome ofthe Iitigation and requiresa trialto resolve the 25 differing versionsofthetruth.'''Lynn v.SheetM etalW orkers'Int'lAss' n,804 F.2d 1472,1483 26 (9thCir.1986)(quotingAdmiraltyFund7.HughJohnson & Co.,677F.2d 1301,1306(9thCir. 27 1982)).ddl-rqhereisnoissuefortrialunlessthereissuficientevidencefavoringthenonmoving 28 padyforajurytoreturnaverdictforthatparty.Iftheevidenceismerelycolorable,orisnot 3 l significantlyprobative,summaryjudgmentmaybegranted.''Anderson $/.LibertyLobby,Inc., l 477U.S,242,249-50(1986)(citationsomitted).ddA merescintillaofevidencewillnotdo,for 3 a jury is permitted to draw only those inferences ofwhich the evidence is reasonably 4 susceptible;itmaynotresorttospeculation.''BritishAirwaysBd.k',Boeing Co.,585 F.2d 946, 5 6 7 8 9 952(9thCir.1978). ,seealsoDaubertv.MerrellDow Pharmaceuticals,Inc.,5O9 U.S.579,596 (1993)('$(IJn the eventthe trialcourtconcludes thatthe scintilla ofevidence presented supporting a position is insufficientto allow a reasonablejurortoconcludethattheposition more Iikely than notis true,the courtremains free ,..to grantsummary judgment.''). Moreover,'lijfthe factualcontextmakes the non-moving party's claim ofa disputed fact 10 im plausible,then thatparty m ustcom e forward with m ore persuasive evidence than otherwise 11 would be necessary to show there is a genuine issue for trial.'' Blue R idge Ins. C o. v. 12 Stanewich,142 F.3d 1145,1149 (9th Cir.1998)(citing Ca/,ArchitecturalBldg.Prods.,Inc.v. 13 FranciscanCeramics,Inc.,818F.2d 1466,1468(9thCir.1987)).Conclusoryallegationsthat 14 areunsupported byfactualdatacannotdefeatamotionforsummaryjudgment,Taylork'.List, 15 88O F.2d 1040,1045 (9thCir.1989). 16 111. ANALYSIS 17 A. 18 Defendantisentitledtojudgmentas amatterofIaw on Plaintiff'sclaim for violation ofthe Eighth Am endm ent. 19 As Defendants state,the Eighth Amendmentis notapplicable untila subjectis 20 convicted and sentenced,See Graham k'.Connor,49O U.S,386,392 n.6 (1989). Plainti# 21 doesnotopposeonEighthAmendmentgrounds.Therefore,Defendantisentitledtojudgment 22 as a matterofIaw on Plaintiff's claim based on violation ofthe Eighth Amendment. 23 24 25 B. Defendantisentitledtojudgmentas amatterofIaw on Plaintiff'sclaim for excessive force underthe Foud h A m endm ent. Though Plaintiffdid notcite to the Fourth Am endment,herclaim m ay be interpreted as 26 one forexcessive force in violation ofthe Fourth A m endm ent,applicable to the States via the 27 FourteenthAmendment.See Bakerv.Mccollan,443 U,S.137,142 (1979). 28 4 1 ' d-rhe doctrine ofqualified immunityprotectsgovernmentofficials dfrom Iiability forcivil 2 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 3 constitutionalrights ofw hich a reasonable person would have know n.'''Pearson v.Callahan, 4 555 U.S. ,129 S.Ct.808,815 (2009)(quoting Harlow t/.Fitzgerald,457 U.S.800,818 5 (1982)). To decide ifqualified immunity applies, courts must determine whether the 6 allegationsorfacts(depending onthe state ofthe proceedings)make outa Constitutional 7 violation and whetherthe Constitutionalrightw as clearly established. Pearson,129 8 815-16. Courts may address eitherprong ofthe qualified imm unity testfirst. /d,at818. 9 rightmaybe clearly established in the absence ofa ruling declaring thevery action unlawful. 10 Instead,in Iightofpre-existing Iaw,the unlawfulness ofthe action mustbe apparent. 11 F,Pelzer,536 U.S.730,739 (2002). 12 The Fourth A m endm entgives Plaintiffa rightto be free from unreasonable seizures of 13 her person. Neither Defendants nor Plaintiff have provided any case Iaw that m ore 14 specifically applies to these circum stances.z The C ourtneed Iook no fudher. D efendants' 15 actionswereobjectivelyreasonable, Plaintiffhad Iied to OfficerHumble anddisobeyed her 16 orders.Plaintiffwasemotional.OfficerHumble would have putherselfatriskifshe bentover 17 to pickupPlaintifrsshoesherself.(See Def.'sMot.forSumm.J,(#54)Ex.C at!(7).Plaintiff 18 refused to pickthem up,so O#icerHum ble and otherofficers restrained Plaintiffby grabbing 19 herhead and arm s.Defendants actionsw ere notunreasonable underclearly established law . 20 21 22 C. DefendantisentitledtojudgmentasamatterofIaw on Plaintifrsclaim for deliberate indifference underthe Fourteenth A m endm ent. Jailofficialsviolateapretrialdetainee'srightsunderthe FourteenthAmendmentd'ifthey 23 are deliberately indifferentto his serious medicalneeds.' Anderson v.County ofKern,45 24 F.3d 1310,1313,1316 (9thCir.1995).Mere negligencedoesnotestablisha constitutional 25 violation, /d,at1316. Jailosicials actwith deliberate indifference iftheiraction 'constitutes 26 an infliction of pain ora deprivation ofthe basic hum an needs,such as adequate food, 27 28 2DefendantsciteatlengthHtjdsonv.McMillian,5O3U.S.1(1992),Thiscaseinvolved an excessl 've force analysis regardlng a prisoners ' rightto be free from crueland unusual punishmentunderthe Eighth Am endment. Id.at4. 5 1 clothing,shelter,sanitation,and medicalcare''and the infliction ofpain is unnecessary and 2 wanton. Id.at 1312-13,n.1 (applying the same standard for Eighth Amendment and 3 Fourteenth Amendment,butnoting the standards could possibly diverge). 'The testfor 4 whethera prisono#icialactswithdeliberateindi#erenceisasubjectiveone:theofficialmust 5 'knowg)ofanddisregardg)anexcessiverisktoinmatehealthandsafety;theofficialmustboth 6 be aware ofthe facts from which the inference could be drawn thata substantialrisk ofserious 7 harm exists,and hemustalsodraw theinference.'''ld.at1313 (quoting Farm ertz.Brennan, 8 511 U.S.825,837 (1994)), 9 The Courtm ustdecide w hetheritw as clearly established atthe tim e ofthe incidentthat 10 thejailofficials'actionsconstituteddeliberateindifference.lfnot,theyareentitledtoqualified 11 immunity. First,Plaintiffhascited to noauthorityestablishingthat,objectively,ajailofficial 12 causes excessive riskto a detainee's health by notproviding m edicaltreatm entfora sprained 13 arm untilthenextday.Giventhenatureofherinjuryandgiventhatanursesaw to itthenext 14 day,thejailofficialsdidnotacttodeprive Plaintiffofbasicmedicalcare.Second,Plaintiffhas 15 allegednofactsthatsuggestDefendantsweresubjectivelyawareofanyexcessiverisktoher 16 health. Though Plaintifftestified thatshe asked form edicaltreatm entaIInight,she does not l7 provide any evidence as to w hom she asked. There is no indication thatO #icerHum ble or 18 OfficerKaku were aware ofherrequestsformedicaltreatment. Therefore,O#icers Humble 19 and Kaku are protected byqualified immunityand entitledtojudgmentasa matterofIaw on 20 Plaintiff's claim fordeliberate indifference. 21 22 D. Las Vegas Metro is notsubjectto municipalIiability because Plaintiff produced no evidence of a policy orcustom thatviolated herrights. 23 LasVegas Metro mayonlybe directly Iiable fora j 1983 claim;there isno vicarious 24 Iiabilityunderj 1983.Monellv.Dep' tofSoc.Servs.,436 U.S.658,690(1978).Thus,forLas 25 Vegas Metro to be Iiable,Plaintiffmustshow thatherrights were violated as a resultofits 26 policy orcustom , Id.at694. Plaintiffhas com pletely failed to produce any evidence thather 27 civilrightswereviolated dueto a policy orcustom ofLasVegas Metro,Therefore,LasVegas 28 6 l Metro isentitledtojudgmentasa matterofIaw,? 2 E. Plaintiffhas notshown justification to allow heradditionaldiscovery to 3 4 oppose Defendants'motionforsummaryjudgment. Plaintiffargues thatshe cannotadequately oppose Defendants'motion because she 5 failedtoconductdiscovery.(PI.'sOpp'n(#59)9:24-12).Sherequests120daysofadditional 6 discoveryso shecanobtaina#idavitsfrom hermedicalcareproviders,(/d.at11:8-12).She 7 failed to conductdiscovery due to herIack ofunderstanding ofcivilprocedure. (/d.at 8 10:2-15). 9 Ifa party opposingthe motign showqbyaffidavitthat,forspecified reasons,it cannotpresentfjctsessentlaltojustlfy1tsopposition,thecourtmay: 10 (1)denythe motlon; (2)ordera continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained,depositionsto be l1 taken,orotherdiscgvery to be undertaken' ,or (3)issueanyotherJustorder. l2 Fed.R,Civ,P.56(f).The partyseeking morediscoverymustshow whatfactsshe hopesto 13 14 15 l6 l7 18 19 discoverthatw illraise m aterialissuesoffactand thatsuch evidence exists. Terrelv.Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,1018 (9thCir.1991), Plaintiffhasfailed to providejustificationfordenying Defendants'motion orallowing heradditionaltim e to obtain affidavits.A ffidavits ofherm edicalproviders are notr/levantto this motion,They willnotadd any evidence regarding Defendants'use offorce on Plaintiff and subsequenttreatmentofhermedicalcondition. Plaintiff's deposition is on record and provides Plainti; with herbestevidence to suppod herclaims. Furthermore,the Courlhas 20 O #icer Hum ble's affidavit and a video recording of the incident on record. Reopening 21 discoverywould be futile. Finally,Plaintiffhad am ple opportunity to conductdiscovery,but 22 23 24 25 failed todo so.SeePfingston k:Ronan Eng' g Co.,284 F.3d999,1005 (9thCir.2002)(dd-rhe failuretoconductdiscoverydiligentlyisgroundsforthe denialofa Rule 56(f)motion.n).''EA) pro se litigant,like anyotherlitigant,mustcom plywith the FederalRulesofCivilProcedure.'' Sindram y'.Merriwether,506 F.Supp,2d 7,11(D.D,C.2007),Therefore,the Courtwillnot 26 27 3Defendants alsq assed thatLas Vegas M etros as a m unicipality,is im muqe from 28 Punitive dam ages. (Def. 'sMot.forSumm.J.(#54)18:23-19:3) Municipalitiesare lmmune from punitivedamagesunderj 1983.CityofNewporfv.Fact(Vncerts,Inc.,453U.S.247, 27O (1981). 7 l deny D efendants'm otion ordelay its ruling so thatPlainti; m ay conductadditionaldiscovery. IV. Conclusion Accordingly,IT IS ORDERED thatDefendants'MotionforSummaryJudgment(#54) is G RA NTED. The Clerkofthe Courtshallenterjudgmentaccordingly. DATED :This 9thday ofJune,2010. Robertc .Jon U NITED sTA 8 DISTR ICT JU DG E
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
