Drew Ribar v. Nevada Department of Corrections and Robert Smith

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 15, 2026
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00103
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 DREW RIBAR, Case No. 3:24-cv-00103-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART v. DEFENDANTS NEVADA 6 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF AND ROBERT SMITH’S MOTION TO 7 CORRECTIONS, et al, DISMISS (ECF No. 52)

8 Defendants.

9 Plaintiff Drew Ribar brings this suit against Defendants Nevada 10 Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), Sergeants Robert Smith, Fernandeis 11 Frazier, TJ Boggan, Deputies Jason Bueno and Sean Palamar, District Attorney 12 Jason Woodbury, and Does 1-10. (ECF No. 47.) The Amended Complaint alleges 13 retaliation under the First Amendment against all Defendants, Fourth 14 Amendment violations against Defendants Bueno, Palamar, Smith, Fraizer, and 15 Boggan, a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant 16 Bueno, a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against all Defendants, a 17 Monell claim against Defendants Carson City, Furlong, and Woodbury, and a 18 section 1983 conspiracy to violate civil rights claim against Defendants Bueno, 19 Palamar, Smith, and Frazier. (Id.) 20 At issue in this order is Defendants NDOC and Robert Smith’s Motion to 21 Dismiss Claims One, Four, and Seven of the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 22 52.) Defendants acknowledge that at the time of filing, Defendant Frazier had not 23 yet been properly served, but that its arguments would also apply to him. 24 Defendants will need to file a separate motion to address claims against 25 Defendant Frazier. Plaintiff filed for leave to file an opposition to the Motion to 26 Dismiss, which is granted. (ECF No. 55.) 27

28 1 I. Legal Standard 2 A court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which 3 relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A properly pleaded complaint must 4 provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 5 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 6 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it 7 demands more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 8 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing 9 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Factual allegations must be enough to rise above the 10 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint must contain sufficient 11 factual matter to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 12 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Under this standard, a district 13 court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint 14 and determine whether those factual allegations state a plausible claim for relief. 15 Id. at 678–79. 16 II. Analysis 17 a. Section 1983 Claim: NDOC 18 Absent a waiver, the State of Nevada is generally immune from suit in 19 federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. NRS 41.031(1). The Court 20 dismisses Mr. Ribar’s section 1983 claim against NDOC for damages with 21 prejudice because NDOC is an arm of the State of Nevada and is not a “person” 22 for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab., 23 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997); Black v. Nev. Dep't of Corr., 2:09-cv-2343-PMP- 24 LRL, 2010 WL 2545760, *2 (D. Nev. June 21, 2010). 25 The Court notes that Mr. Ribar requests injunctive relief in the form of 26 “enjoin[ing] Defendants from detaining individuals for recording in public spaces 27 and censoring social media speech.” (ECF No. 47 at 8.) To state a claim for 28 injunctive relief against the state, a plaintiff must “identify the law or policy 1 challenged as a constitutional violation and name the official within the entity 2 who can appropriately respond to injunctive relief.” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 3 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Hartmann v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 707 4 F.3d 1114, 1127 (9th Cir.2013)). Because Defendants do not dispute the 5 sufficiency of Mr. Ribar’s claims against Defendant NDOC for injunctive relief, 6 this claim survives. 7 b. Section 1983 Claim: Smith 8 Officials can be sued in their individual capacities under § 1983. To 9 adequately plead a government official's personal liability, plaintiffs must plead 10 facts from which a court could reasonably infer (1) that the official was personally 11 involved in the alleged constitutional deprivation or (2) the existence of a 12 sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the 13 constitutional violation. Rogers v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 764 F. 14 Supp. 3d 971, 976 (D. Nev. 2025) (citing Gardner v. City of Las Vegas, 2017 WL 15 3087276, at *3 (D. Nev. Jul. 20, 2017)). Therefore, because Defendants do not 16 dispute the sufficiency of Mr. Ribar’s claims against Defendant Smith in his 17 individual capacity, this claim survives. 18 c. Oppression Under Color of Law NRS 197.200 19 Nevada Revised Statute § 197.200 is a criminal statute which prohibits 20 oppression under color of office. NRS § 197.200 cannot be enforced by private 21 civil action. Collins v. Palczewski, 841 F. Supp. 333, 340 (D. Nev. 1993) (“[section] 22 197.200 is strictly criminal in nature and possess no civil implications”). 23 Therefore, this claim is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. 24 d. False Imprisonment NRS 200.460 25 Nevada Revised Statute § 200.460 is also a criminal statute, which makes 26 false imprisonment a felony, but does not create a civil cause of action. Sykes v. 27 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., No. 2:21-cv-01479 2021 WL 5799381, at *4 28 (D. Nev. Dec. 3, 2021) (“NRS 200.460 is a criminal statute which makes false 1 || imprisonment a felony but does not create a civil cause of action”). Therefore, this 2 || claim is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. 3 III. Conclusion 4 It is therefore ordered that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED 5 || WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant NDOC for Counts One and Four to the extent 6 || Plaintiff requests damages. 7 It is further ordered that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED 8 || WITH PREJUDICE as to all Defendants as it relates to NRS §8§ 197.200 and 9 || 200.460. 10 It is further ordered that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 52) is 11 || DENIED as to its claim against Defendant NDOC for injunctive relief and 12 |} Defendant Smith in his individual capacity for Count One and Four. 13 14 Dated this day of January, 2026. 15

17 ANNE R. TRAUM 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28