SERGIO MORALES V. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, No. 14-15746 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 14 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO MORALES, as Special Administrator and as the father and Heir of the Estate of SERGIO HUGO MORALESPAREDES, deceased, No. 14-15746 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02171-JCM-VCF Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; CHIEF FORTI; NORHR, Capt.; JOSEPH CHRONISTER, Assistant Chief; POWELL, Lt.; ROGERS, Sgt.; J. CAMPBELL, Sgt.; MCCAFFERTY, Classification Counselor; PRESCILLA TENUTA, P#1376, Classification Technician; GIARMO, Sgt.; WOOLMAN, Lt.; MOTE, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submission Deferred April 11, 2016** Resubmitted December 14, 2016 San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Sergio Hugo Morales-Paredes appeals from the judgment in favor of all defendants in this action arising out of the murder of his son, Sergio, while he was in the pretrial custody of the North Las Vegas Detention Center. We affirm the judgment in favor of the City of North Las Vegas. There is no evidence that there was any policy or practice of placing pretrial detainees in dangerous situations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 456 U.S. 658, 690–97 (1978). A single instance is not sufficient. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823 (1985); see also Gant v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir. 2014). When the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants, it did not have the benefit of our recent en banc decision in Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). That decision altered the analytical framework applicable to pretrial detainees’ claims. We ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 therefore vacate the judgment in favor of the individual defendants and remand for reconsideration in light of Castro. Each party shall bear its own costs. AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part and REMANDED. 3

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.