Marisela Quintero Violante v. Nicklaus Hamby, individually; Raymond Canales, individually; City of Henderson, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; Henderson Police Department, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; DÖES 1-X, inclusive, and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 26, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01112
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MARISELA QUINTERO VIOLANTE, Case No. 2:25-cv-01112-MMD-EJY

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 NICKLAUS HAMBY, individually; 9 RAYMOND CANALES, individually; CITY OF HENDERSON, a political subdivision 10 of the State of Nevada: HENDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, a political 11 subdivision of the State of Nevada; DÖES 1-X, inclusive, and ROE 12 CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive,

13 Defendants. 14 I. SUMMARY 15 This action arises from an incident involving alleged police officer misconduct in 16 downtown Las Vegas on September 24, 2023. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 4 (“Complaint”).) Plaintiff 17 Marisela Quintero Violante sued Defendants City of Henderson (the “City”), Henderson 18 Police Department (“HPD” or the “Police Department”), and Officers Nicklaus Hamby and 19 Raymond Canales, bringing federal and state claims based on allegations that she was 20 subjected to unlawful excessive force by Officers Hamby and Canales. Before the Court 21 is Defendant HPD’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the Police 22 Department from this action based upon its status as an “unsuable department of the 23 City.”1 (ECF No. 12 (“Motion”).) As explained below, the Court will grant Defendant HPD’s 24 Motion, as no genuine material factual dispute exists as to HDP’s status as an unsuable 25 department. 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 2 This case arises from injuries Plaintiff Quintero alleges she incurred through an 3 incident involving HPD Officers Hamby and Canales in downtown Las Vegas on 4 September 24, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) Quintero was in the downtown area with her boyfriend, 5 Alejandro Torres Marquez, when a dispute arose regarding their entry into or exit from 6 the nearby “Life is Beautiful” music festival. (Id. at 4-5.) The incident escalated into a 7 physical altercation in which Defendants Hamby and Canales pushed Quintero and 8 Marquez “with enough force to knock them to the ground.” (Id. at 5.) As Quintero alleges 9 in her Complaint, Defendant Hamby then “used a double leg takedown” on her and, while 10 she was on the ground, “stomped on her leg causing it to break.” (Id. at 6.) Quintero 11 alleges that she suffered bodily injury, pain and suffering, and emotional distress as a 12 result. (Id.) 13 Quintero subsequently initiated this action. The Complaint asserts a federal 14 constitutional claim for excessive force and due process violations of the Fourth and 15 Fourteenth Amendments (id. at 6-7) along with a municipal liability claim against HDP 16 and the City, both under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 7-9.) Quintero also asserts assault, 17 battery, and negligence claims under Nevada law. (Id. at 9-10.) 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 Defendant HPD seeks summary judgment on the basis that the Police Department 20 is not a cognizable legal entity capable of being sued because it is a department of the 21 City of Henderson, not a political subdivision. (ECF No. 12 at 3-4.) In response, Quintero 22 concedes that, although the Police Department may be dismissed as a non-suable entity 23 under § 1983, such dismissal should not extinguish any of her claims against the City. 24 (ECF No. 13 at 6-8.) That Court agrees and will dismiss the Police Department as a non- 25 suable entity. 26 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b), an entity's capacity to be sued is 27 determined under Nevada state law. See also Streit v. Cnty. of L.A., 236 F.3d 552, 565 28 1 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that a police department's “capacity to be sued in federal court” is 2 determined by state law). In Nevada, “[i]n the absence of statutory authorization, a 3 department of the municipal government may not, in the departmental name, sue or be 4 sued.” Wayment v. Holmes, 912 P.2d 816, 819 (Nev. 1996) (holding that Washoe County 5 District Attorney's Office is “not a suable entity because it is a department of 6 Washoe County, not a political subdivision”) (internal citation omitted). Here, the Court 7 agrees that HDP is a department of the City and not a political subdivision capable of 8 being sued. See Sykes v. City of Henderson. 738 F. Supp. 3d 1344, 1355 (D. Nev. 2024) 9 (holding that “HPD is a municipal department of the City of Henderson and not a separate 10 legal entity capable of being sued”); see also Shafer v. City of Boulder, 896 F. Supp. 2d 11 915, 939 (D. Nev. 2012) (noting that Boulder City Police Department is not a legal entity 12 capable of being sued) (internal citation omitted). 13 Even if HDP is not a cognizable legal entity capable of being sued, the Court finds 14 that the City may be substituted in lieu of the improperly named defendant. See, e.g., 15 Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (substituting Maricopa County 16 as a party in lieu of improperly named defendant, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office). Here, 17 Quintero has already named the City as a defendant. The Court thus finds that the City, 18 itself, is the proper defendant, not the municipal department (i.e., HDP). 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 || IV. CONCLUSION 2 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited several cases 3 || not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and 4 || determines that they do not warrant discussion, as they do not affect the outcome of the 5 || issues before the Court. 6 It is therefore ordered that Henderson Police Department’s motion for summary 7 || judgment (ECF No. 12) is granted. Defendant Henderson Police Department is dismissed 8 || from this action. This case will proceed against the City of Henderson and Officers 9 || Nicklaus Hamby and Raymond Canales. 10 DATED THIS 26" Day of January 2026. 11 12 13 C 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28