2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 THOMAS J. HEYDEN, Case No. 3:24-cv-00600-ART-CLB 5 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 6 v.
7 MINERAL COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff Thomas Heyden, who is detained at Mineral County Detention 11 Facility (“MCDF”), has submitted a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 12 (“Complaint”), an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and duplicate 13 motions seeking the appointment of counsel and a preliminary injunction. (ECF 14 Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12.) Because Plaintiff is unable to pay the full filing fee, the Court 15 grants his application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 11.) The Court now 16 screens Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and disposes of the 17 motions. 18 SCREENING STANDARD 19 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which 20 a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 21 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must 22 identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, 23 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary 24 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings, however, must be liberally construed. 26 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). to state a 27 1 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 2 the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, 3 and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color 4 of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 5 In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, under the Prison 6 Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a federal court must dismiss an incarcerated 7 person’s claim if “the allegation of poverty is untrue” or if the action “is frivolous 8 or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 9 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which 11 relief can be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 12 and the Court applies the same standard under § 1915 when reviewing the 13 adequacy of a complaint or an amended complaint. When a court dismisses a 14 complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 15 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the 16 face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. 17 See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 18 Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See 19 Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for 20 failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove 21 any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. See 22 Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this 23 determination, the Court takes as true all allegations of material fact stated in 24 the complaint, and the Court construes them in the light most favorable to the 25 plaintiff. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). 26 Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than 27 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). 1 While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 2 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. See 3 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of 4 the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. See id. 5 Additionally, a reviewing court should “begin by identifying pleadings 6 [allegations] that, because they are no more than mere conclusions, are not 7 entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 8 “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must 9 be supported with factual allegations.” Id. “When there are well-pleaded factual 10 allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether 11 they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. “Determining whether a 12 complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that 13 requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common 14 sense.” Id. 15 Finally, all or part of a complaint filed by an incarcerated person may be 16 dismissed sua sponte if that person’s claims lack an arguable basis either in law 17 or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable 18 (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of 19 infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims 20 based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). See 21 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 22 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 24 In his Complaint, Plaintiff sues multiple Defendants for events that took 25 place while he was detained at MCDF. (ECF No. 12 at 1.) Plaintiff sues 26 Defendants MCDF, Mineral County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”), Deputy Moon Kim, 27 and Sgt. R. Bolanos. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff brings three claims and seeks monetary 1 relief. (Id. at 3–6.) 2 Plaintiff alleges the following facts. On March 16, 2023, at what appears 3 to have been Plaintiff’s arraignment, a judge set Plaintiff’s bail for $50,000. (Id. 4 at 2.) Three days later, the bail amount was lowered to $30,000. (Id.) For the next 5 several months, Plaintiff attempted to post a bail bond through two different 6 companies, but he was unsuccessful. (Id.) He learned that Deputy Kim had given 7 false information to one of the bond companies, which prevented him from 8 posting bail. (Id. at 3.) And Sgt. Bolanos refused to fax or email the other 9 company the charges against Plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 THOMAS J. HEYDEN, Case No. 3:24-cv-00600-ART-CLB 5 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 6 v.
7 MINERAL COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff Thomas Heyden, who is detained at Mineral County Detention 11 Facility (“MCDF”), has submitted a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 12 (“Complaint”), an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and duplicate 13 motions seeking the appointment of counsel and a preliminary injunction. (ECF 14 Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12.) Because Plaintiff is unable to pay the full filing fee, the Court 15 grants his application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 11.) The Court now 16 screens Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and disposes of the 17 motions. 18 SCREENING STANDARD 19 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which 20 a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 21 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must 22 identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, 23 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary 24 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings, however, must be liberally construed. 26 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). to state a 27 1 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 2 the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, 3 and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color 4 of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 5 In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, under the Prison 6 Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a federal court must dismiss an incarcerated 7 person’s claim if “the allegation of poverty is untrue” or if the action “is frivolous 8 or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 9 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which 11 relief can be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 12 and the Court applies the same standard under § 1915 when reviewing the 13 adequacy of a complaint or an amended complaint. When a court dismisses a 14 complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 15 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the 16 face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. 17 See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 18 Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See 19 Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for 20 failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove 21 any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. See 22 Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this 23 determination, the Court takes as true all allegations of material fact stated in 24 the complaint, and the Court construes them in the light most favorable to the 25 plaintiff. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). 26 Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than 27 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). 1 While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 2 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. See 3 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of 4 the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. See id. 5 Additionally, a reviewing court should “begin by identifying pleadings 6 [allegations] that, because they are no more than mere conclusions, are not 7 entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 8 “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must 9 be supported with factual allegations.” Id. “When there are well-pleaded factual 10 allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether 11 they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. “Determining whether a 12 complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that 13 requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common 14 sense.” Id. 15 Finally, all or part of a complaint filed by an incarcerated person may be 16 dismissed sua sponte if that person’s claims lack an arguable basis either in law 17 or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable 18 (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of 19 infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims 20 based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). See 21 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 22 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 24 In his Complaint, Plaintiff sues multiple Defendants for events that took 25 place while he was detained at MCDF. (ECF No. 12 at 1.) Plaintiff sues 26 Defendants MCDF, Mineral County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”), Deputy Moon Kim, 27 and Sgt. R. Bolanos. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff brings three claims and seeks monetary 1 relief. (Id. at 3–6.) 2 Plaintiff alleges the following facts. On March 16, 2023, at what appears 3 to have been Plaintiff’s arraignment, a judge set Plaintiff’s bail for $50,000. (Id. 4 at 2.) Three days later, the bail amount was lowered to $30,000. (Id.) For the next 5 several months, Plaintiff attempted to post a bail bond through two different 6 companies, but he was unsuccessful. (Id.) He learned that Deputy Kim had given 7 false information to one of the bond companies, which prevented him from 8 posting bail. (Id. at 3.) And Sgt. Bolanos refused to fax or email the other 9 company the charges against Plaintiff. (Id.) These officers interfered with 10 Plaintiff’s ability to obtain a bail bond because they thought the $30,000 bail 11 amount was too low. (Id. at 2.) Two years later, Plaintiff remains detained at 12 MCDF and has not been able to post bail. (Id.) 13 Based on these allegations, Plaintiff raises three claims relating to his right 14 to post bail under the Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth 15 Amendment. Plaintiff, however, cannot raise these claims at this time. 16 In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and its progeny, the Supreme 17 Court held that, where a judgment in a prisoner’s favor on a § 1983 action would 18 necessarily imply the invalidity of the individual’s confinement, the claim is not 19 cognizable until the confined individual demonstrates that the sentence or 20 conviction has been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 483, 486. In this case, while 21 Plaintiff seeks damages for the Defendants blocking his access to posting bail, if 22 the Court were to find in Plaintiff’s favor, it would imply the invalidity of his 23 confinement for the past two years because he would have been already released 24 on bail. Thus, Plaintiff’s petition must be brought via writ of habeas corpus 25 because it inherently challenges the fact of his current confinement. Coil v. 26 Wolfson, No. 2:24-cv-00304-RFB-DJA, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116094, at *9 (D. 27 Nev. July 2, 2024); Hood v. Friel, No. 3:23-cv-00486-MMD-CLB, 2023 U.S. Dist. 1 LEXIS 205601, at *5 (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2023). After conviction, such a habeas 2 claim becomes moot because bail can no longer be granted, but then Plaintiff 3 may seek to raise a viable § 1983 actions for damages. Coil, 2024 U.S. Dist. 4 LEXIS 116094, at *9. Because Plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee who has not yet 5 been convicted, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice to Plaintiff 6 bringing his claim in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court orders the 7 Clerk of the Court to close this case and enter judgment. 8 MOTIONS 9 Plaintiff files duplicate motions seeking the appointment of counsel and a 10 preliminary injunction. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) Seeking the appointment of counsel and 11 a preliminary injunction requires Plaintiff to show he is likely to succeed on the 12 merits of his case. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating 13 legal standard for appointment of counsel in a civil case); Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 14 Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating legal 15 standard for injunctive relief). Because the Court has dismissed the entire 16 Complaint without prejudice, he fails to establish that he is likely to succeed on 17 the merits of his case. The Court therefore denies the motions (ECF Nos. 7, 8) 18 without prejudice. 19 CONCLUSION 20 It is therefore ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis 21 without having to prepay the filing fee (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall 22 not pay an initial installment fee, prepay fees or costs or provide security for fees 23 or cost, but he is still required to pay the full $350 filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915. 25 To ensure that Plaintiff pays the full filing fee, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 26 that the Inmate Accounting Chief at MCDF will forward payments from the 27 account of Thomas Heyden, #24218 to the Clerk of the United States District 1 |} Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that 2 || the account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this 3 || action. The Clerk is directed to SEND copies of this order to the Finance Division 4 || of the Clerk’s Office and to the attention of the Inmate Accounting Chief at 5 || Mineral County Detention Center, 105 South A St., Hawthorne, NV 89415. 6 It is further ordered that the motions for counsel and a preliminary 7 || injunction (ECF Nos. 7, 8) are denied without prejudice. 8 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a 9 || courtesy copy of the Complaint (ECF No. 12). 10 It is further ordered that the Complaint (ECF No. 12) is dismissed without 11 || prejudice to Plaintiff filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 12 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment and close 13 || this case. No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 14 It is further ordered that the Court certifies that an in forma pauperis 15 || appeal from this order would not be taken “in good faith” under 28 U.S.C. § 16 || 1915(a)(3). 17 DATED THIS 3rd day of September 2025. 18 19 en x Pree Wasted
a1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28