Judkins v. Clark County Detention Center ( 2023 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ADAM JUDKINS, Case No.: 2:22-cv-00878-APG-EJY 4 Plaintiff Order 5 v. [ECF No. 19] 6 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 On April 24, 2023, Magistrate Judge Youchah recommended that the following claims 10 asserted by plaintiff Adam Judkins be dismissed with prejudice: 11 1. Fourth Amendment false arrest and false imprisonment claims against Officers Jaessen 12 and Finley; 13 2. Sixth Amendment right to counsel claim; 14 3. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Clark County Detention Center; 15 4. All claims against Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officers in 16 their official capacities; and 17 5. Prison Rape Elimination Act claims against Sergeants Batu and Sergeant Kelly. 18 She also recommended that the following claims be dismissed without prejudice and with leave 19 to amend: 20 1. Monell claim against the LVMPD; 21 2. First Amendment free exercise claim; 22 3. Fourth Amendment claim against Officer Martin; 23 4. Fourth Amendment claim against Sergeant Kelly; 1 5. Fourteenth Amendment claim for right to medical care; and 2 6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. 3 Finally, she recommended that I give Judkins until May 31, 2023 to file an amended complaint. 4 Judkins did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the 5 report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo 6 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is 7 made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the 8 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 9 objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). Nevertheless, I have reviewed 10 Judge Youchah’s Report and Recommendation, and I disagree with one of her recommendations. 11 Specifically, Judge Youchah recommends dismissal of claims against the LVMPD officers who 12 are sued in their official capacities because they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment 13 protection. ECF No. 19 at 14. However, LVMPD is not an arm of the state, its officers are not 14 officers of the state, and therefore these officers are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment 15 protection. But I agree with Judge Youchah that it is unclear whether the LVMPD officers are 16 being sued in their individual or official capacities. Plaintiff Adam Judkins should clarify this if 17 he files an amended complaint. 18 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Youchah’s report and recommendation 19 (ECF No. 19) is accepted in part. The following claims are dismissed with prejudice: 20 1. Fourth Amendment false arrest and false imprisonment claims against Officers Jaessen 21 and Finley; 22 2. Sixth Amendment right to counsel claim; 23 3. Claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Clark County Detention Center; and ] 4. Prison Rape Elimination Act claims against Sergeants Batu and Sergeant Kelly. The following claims are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend: 3 1. Monell claim against the LVMPD; 4 2. First Amendment free exercise claim; 5 3. Fourth Amendment claim against Officer Martin; 6 4. Fourth Amendment claim against Sergeant Kelly; 7 5. Fourteenth Amendment claim for right to medical care; and 8 6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. 9] Judkins has until June 7, 2023 to file an amended complaint. If Judkins does not file an amended 10|| complaint by that date, then the case will proceed on the excessive force claim against Batu and claims against the LVMPD officers. 12 DATED this 17th day of May, 2023. 13 Z a 4 ANDREWP.GORDON. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23