Stewart v. Schreiner ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 ANTHONY STEWART, Case No. 2:23-cv-00277-MMD-NJK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER and 9 v. REPORT and RECOMMENDATION 10 JONAH SCHREINER, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 I. Discussion 13 On June 20, 2024, the Court issued a Screening Order and Report and Recommendation, 14 Docket No. 14, screening Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 9, 15 recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Sergeant John Doe and the City of Las Vegas be 16 dismissed with leave to amend and allowing claims to proceed against Defendants Jonah Lee 17 Schreiner, Nicolette Joy Hawkins, and Defendant John Doe Intake Officer. The Report and 18 Recommendation further recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Clark County Detention 19 Center be dismissed with prejudice. Finally, the order found that the FAC failed to state a colorable 20 claim against the State of Nevada. Plaintiff was given until July 15, 2024, to file a second amended 21 complaint. 22 Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint. Accordingly, the FAC will proceed as 23 the active complaint on the following claims only: (1) Fourth Amendment excessive force against 24 John Doe Intake Officer, when in violation of § 1983; (2) Fourth Amendment false arrest, false 25 imprisonment, and malicious prosecution in violation of § 1983; and (3) false arrest, false 26 imprisonment, and malicious prosecution in violation of Nevada State Law against Defendants 27 Hawkins and Schreiner. 28 1} II. ORDER and RECOMMENDATION 2 For the reasons discussed above, it is ordered that pursuant to the Court’s screening order, 3} Docket No. 14, this action will proceed on the following claims only: (1) Fourth Amendment 4] excessive force against John Doe Intake Officer in violation of § 1983; (2) Fourth Amendment 5| false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution in violation of § 1983; and (3) false 6] arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution in violation of Nevada State Law against 7| Defendants Hawkins and Schreiner. 8 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court add Defendant John Doe Intake Officer to the docket caption. 10 It is further RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to the Screening Order, Docket No. 14, all 11] claims against Defendants State of Nevada, LVMPD, and Clark County Detention Center be 12| DISMISSED with prejudice. 13 It is further RECOMMENDED that all claims against the City of Las Vegas and Sergeant 14] John Doe be DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: August 15, 2024. he. 18 United Stats a gistrate Judge 19 NOTICE 20! This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this a1 case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being Served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 25|| objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 261 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 27 28