Sharpe v. Ruiz ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 RAY SHARPE, Case No. 2:22-cv-01624-MMD-NJK 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 RUIZ, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Ray Sharpe filed an unopposed motion to clarify or reconsider parts of the 13 October 30, 2023 screening order, arguing that the Court mistakenly characterized his 14 Tenth Claim for Relief as bringing a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress 15 instead of simple negligence. (ECF No. 69.) Reconsideration of an order that is not case- 16 dispositive may be appropriate if “the court has overlooked or misunderstood” any point 17 of law or fact. Nev. LR 59-1(a); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Upon second review, the 18 Court finds that Sharpe’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) seeks to bring a claim for 19 simple negligence with physical and emotional injuries, not a claim for negligent infliction 20 of emotional distress as stated in the October 30, 2023 screening order. (See ECF No. 20 21 at 47-49.) The Court thus grants Sharpe’s motion for reconsideration, and now 22 determines if the SAC sufficiently states a state-law negligence claim against any 23 Defendant. Finding that it does, the Court vacates and amends the screening order 24 accordingly. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 “A claim for negligence in Nevada requires that the plaintiff satisfy four elements: 27 (1) an existing duty of care, (2) breach, (3) legal causation, and (4) damages.” Turner v. 28 Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 180 P.3d 1172, 1175 (Nev. 2008). Nevada recognizes that, 2 ordinary care to protect violence between inmates” but “the State only has a duty to 3 protect inmates from foreseeable harm.” Butler v. Ex rel. Biller v. Bayer, 168 P.3d 1055, 4 1063-64 (Nev. 2007). 5 Sharpe’s Tenth Claim for Relief states a colorable negligence claim. Based on the 6 allegations, Lieutenant Ruiz, D. Thomas, and Does 1-5 are State employees who are 7 responsible for the supervision and movement of prisoners in High Desert State Prison. 8 The SAC contains sufficient factual allegations to state that these Defendants breached 9 their duties when they orchestrated, planned, and/or participated—through acts or 10 omissions—in an attack on Sharpe by Suernos gang members, and subsequently 11 interfered with him receiving medical care for physical injuries that he sustained in the 12 attack. Sharpe also alleges that he sustained severe emotional injuries like depression 13 and anxiety because of Defendants’ breaches. 14 The SAC sufficiently alleges that Ruiz, Thomas, and Does 1-5 acted outside the 15 scope of their employment and for their own benefit, not on behalf of their employer. But 16 there are no factual allegations that any other Defendant’s alleged tortious conduct or 17 omission occurred outside the scope of their employment duties. The state-law 18 negligence claim is therefore sufficiently pled as to Ruiz, Thomas, and Does 1-5 but not 19 as to the Nevada Department of Corrections, Daniels, Johnson, Williams, or Does 6-10. 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 It is therefore ordered that the motion to clarify or reconsider the October 30, 2023 22 screening order (ECF No. 69) is granted. 23 It is further ordered that the parts of the screening order allowing a claim for 24 negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed (ECF No. 21 at 20:18-21:06 & 22:18- 25 21) are vacated. 26 It is further ordered that the October 30, 2023 screening order is amended to 27 provide that the state-law negligence claim—Sharpe’s Tenth Claim for Relief—will 28 proceed against Ruiz and Thomas now, that claim will proceed against Does 1-5 when 1 || Sharpe learns their true names and obtains leave of Court to substitute them as 2 || defendants in this action, but that claim is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to 3 || amend as to Daniels, Johnson, Williams, and Does 6-10." 4 DATED THIS 24' Day of June 2024. MIRANDA M. DU 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ‘This order does not disturb the Court’s finding that the State of Nevada ex rel. the 27 || Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC’) is an indispensable party to Sharpe’s state- tort claims arising out of acts or omissions within the scope of Defendants’ public duties 28 || or employment, or its decision to dismiss those claims without prejudice but without leave to amend in this action because the Court lacks an independent basis for jurisdiction over the State and the NDOC.