Collins v. Nevada Department of Corrections

D. Nevada

Collins v. Nevada Department of Corrections

DecidedJune 6, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-01795

StatusUnknown

This text of Collins v. Nevada Department of Corrections (Collins v. Nevada Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collins v. Nevada Department of Corrections, (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 RONALD W. COLLINS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01795-CDS-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 8 Defendant. 9 10 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Ronald Collins’ Motion for Leave to File an 11 Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Defendants Gollen Job, Julie Williams, and Joseph Swartz do 12 not oppose Collins’ request on substantive grounds.1 Instead, they request that the Court screen 13 Collins’ proposed amended complaint. ECF No. 24. 14 In addition, Defendants request that the Order (at ECF No. 17) regarding acceptance for 15 service be stayed until the Court determines whether Collins will be allowed to amend his 16 complaint. ECF No. 25. 17 Given Defendants have not articulated a legal basis for the denial of Collins’ motion, and 18 because the Court is not obligated to screen Collins’ complaint a second time, Collins’ Motion for 19 Leave to File an Amended Complaint will be granted. In addition, Defendants will be provided 20 with additional time to comply with this Court’s Order at ECF No. 17 regarding acceptance of 21 service. 22 Analysis 23 On October 26, 2022, Collins filed a Complaint alleging various constitutional claims 24 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 9. After screening Collins’ complaint, the Court permitted 25 Collins to proceed on claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, 26

27 1 Court considers five factors in assessing the propriety of leave to amend—bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended 1 and unsafe conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in 2 violation of the First Amendment, and for deprivation of due process in violation of the 3 Fourteenth Amendment. ECF No. 8. 4 “There is no question that the [Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)] requires courts to 5 engage in pre-answer screening of an inmate’s complaint.” Olausen v. Murguia, Case No. 3:13- 6 cv-00388-MMD-VPC, 2014 WL 6065622, at *1. Indeed, the Court has already screened 7 Plaintiff's original complaint for claims that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon 8 which relief can be granted. ECF No. 8. 9 Once a complaint has survived screening, the need for additional screening is reduced. 10 See, e.g., Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that the purpose of 11 Section 1915 is to ensure that "the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the 12 expense of responding"). Additionally, there is no requirement that courts continue to screen 13 every amended complaint that is filed. Olausen v. Murguia, No. 3:13-CV-00388-MMD, 2014 WL 14 6065622, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2014) ("[T]he screening provision does not require a court, 15 either explicitly or implicitly, to screen every time a plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint."). 16 Here, Defendants had an opportunity to oppose Collins’ motion on substantive grounds if 17 they thought Plaintiff's amended complaint was defective. They chose not to do so. Instead, they 18 request the Court to do this work for them. The Court will not do so. As a result, the Court will 19 grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend. To the extent Defendants believe Collins’ amended complaint 20 suffers from any defects, they can file the appropriate motion to dismiss. 21 Conclusion 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 18) is 23 GRANTED. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall detach and file ECF No. 18-1 25 as a separate entry on the docket. 26 /// 27 /// ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion at ECF No. 25 is GRANTED. 2 || Defendants will have 21 days from the date of this Order to comply with ECF No. 17. 3 DATED: June 6, 2023. 4 □□ Lea WCE BRENDA WEKSLER 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 RONALD W. COLLINS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01795-CDS-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 8 Defendant. 9 10 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Ronald Collins’ Motion for Leave to File an 11 Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Defendants Gollen Job, Julie Williams, and Joseph Swartz do 12 not oppose Collins’ request on substantive grounds.1 Instead, they request that the Court screen 13 Collins’ proposed amended complaint. ECF No. 24. 14 In addition, Defendants request that the Order (at ECF No. 17) regarding acceptance for 15 service be stayed until the Court determines whether Collins will be allowed to amend his 16 complaint. ECF No. 25. 17 Given Defendants have not articulated a legal basis for the denial of Collins’ motion, and 18 because the Court is not obligated to screen Collins’ complaint a second time, Collins’ Motion for 19 Leave to File an Amended Complaint will be granted. In addition, Defendants will be provided 20 with additional time to comply with this Court’s Order at ECF No. 17 regarding acceptance of 21 service. 22 Analysis 23 On October 26, 2022, Collins filed a Complaint alleging various constitutional claims 24 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 9. After screening Collins’ complaint, the Court permitted 25 Collins to proceed on claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, 26

27 1 Court considers five factors in assessing the propriety of leave to amend—bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended 1 and unsafe conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in 2 violation of the First Amendment, and for deprivation of due process in violation of the 3 Fourteenth Amendment. ECF No. 8. 4 “There is no question that the [Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)] requires courts to 5 engage in pre-answer screening of an inmate’s complaint.” Olausen v. Murguia, Case No. 3:13- 6 cv-00388-MMD-VPC, 2014 WL 6065622, at *1. Indeed, the Court has already screened 7 Plaintiff's original complaint for claims that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon 8 which relief can be granted. ECF No. 8. 9 Once a complaint has survived screening, the need for additional screening is reduced. 10 See, e.g., Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that the purpose of 11 Section 1915 is to ensure that "the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the 12 expense of responding"). Additionally, there is no requirement that courts continue to screen 13 every amended complaint that is filed. Olausen v. Murguia, No. 3:13-CV-00388-MMD, 2014 WL 14 6065622, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2014) ("[T]he screening provision does not require a court, 15 either explicitly or implicitly, to screen every time a plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint."). 16 Here, Defendants had an opportunity to oppose Collins’ motion on substantive grounds if 17 they thought Plaintiff's amended complaint was defective. They chose not to do so. Instead, they 18 request the Court to do this work for them. The Court will not do so. As a result, the Court will 19 grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend. To the extent Defendants believe Collins’ amended complaint 20 suffers from any defects, they can file the appropriate motion to dismiss. 21 Conclusion 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 18) is 23 GRANTED. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall detach and file ECF No. 18-1 25 as a separate entry on the docket. 26 /// 27 /// ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion at ECF No. 25 is GRANTED. 2 || Defendants will have 21 days from the date of this Order to comply with ECF No. 17. 3 DATED: June 6, 2023. 4 □□ Lea WCE BRENDA WEKSLER 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Collins v. Nevada Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-nevada-department-of-corrections-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack