Quashawn Sheridan v. T. Rookie, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 25, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-01806
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 QUASHAWN SHERIDAN, Case No. 2:26-cv-01806-RFB-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER and 6 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

7 T. ROOKIE, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis 11 and indecipherable and partially delusional Civil Rights Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. The in forma 12 pauperis application is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to refile. The Court recommends 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice, but without 14 leave to amend. The Court Orders certain claims dismissed without prejudice and with one 15 opportunity to amend. 16 1. Screening Standard 17 Despite recommending denial of Plaintiff’s IFP, the Court screens Plaintiff’s Complaint 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When conducting its review, the Court must identify any cognizable 19 claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may 20 be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from relief. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915A(b)(1), (2). Hence, to survive dismissal a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, 22 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 23 662, 678 (2009). The Court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it 24 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would 25 entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 26 U.S. at 678). 27 Whether a complaint is sufficient to state a claim is determined by taking all allegations of 1 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 2 Although the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) does not require detailed 3 factual allegations, a plaintiff must nonetheless provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell 4 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action is insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear a complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured 6 through amendment, a pro se plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice 7 regarding the complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 8 Finally, a complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent legal 9 interest or delusional factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). “[A] 10 finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational 11 or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict 12 them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). 13 II. Discussion 14 a. Plaintiff’s Complaint Allegations. 15 Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to relate to events that may have taken place in 2023 in Reno, 16 Nevada. Plaintiff alleged he was paroled and, potentially, parole officers were “switched”; his father 17 died; he was kidnapped in New Jersey; and Reno police officers conspired to steal his father’s life 18 insurance and to kill him. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. Plaintiff also alleges that in 2023, he was “seized” for 19 displaying a knife (a fraudulent claim) and or “for a warrant for [a] registry violation”; he was left 20 in a dry cell for four days without adequate food; taken to lock up without due process; and “given 21 mixed medications.” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff alleges some involvement of “Obama” and a telephone (id. 22 at 5). As best as can be determined, it appears Plaintiff alleges First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, 23 and Fourteenth Amendment violations. Id. at 3-5. 24 b. Certain Claims Should be Dismissed with Prejudice. 25 The Court concludes Plaintiff’s claims regarding kidnapping, conspiracy to steal life 26 insurance and to kill him, and the involvement of Obama and a telephone, no matter how sincerely 27 believed, “are simply too fantastic to warrant the expenditure of further judicial and private 1 at *2 (D. Ariz. June 11, 2007). Supreme Court precedent holds that U.S. District Courts have the 2 power to “dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a 3 category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 4 32-33 (cleaned up) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325-328). The Court recommends Plaintiff’s claims 5 of kidnapping, conspiracy, and involving “Obama” and a telephone should be dismissed with 6 prejudice as they are so fanciful and fantastic that additional judicial resources are not well spent on 7 these claims. 8 Further, Plaintiff cannot state a Fifth Amendment claim as all allegations raised are against 9 state actors. Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 1002 n.5 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that “[t]he Fifth 10 Amendment prohibits the federal government from depriving persons of due process, while the 11 Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits deprivations without due process by the several 12 States.”). Plaintiff’s claims under the Fifth Amendment should be dismissed with prejudice. 13 To state a claim that a government official violated a plaintiff's First Amendment right to 14 freedom of speech, the plaintiff must allege that he was engaged in a constitutionally protected 15 speech activity, the state actor’s conduct caused him to suffer an injury that would chill a person of 16 ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such speech, and the wrongful conduct was 17 substantially motivated by the plaintiff's exercise of his constitutionally protected conduct. 18 Mendocino Environmental Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999). 19 A review of Plaintiff’s Complaint show, no matter how liberally construed, there are no facts 20 supporting a violation of the First Amendment. The nature of Plaintiff’s allegations defy the notion 21 that amendment could cure this deficiency. Thus, the Court recommends that to the extent Plaintiff 22 seeks to assert a claim based on the violation of the First Amendment, this claim be dismissed with 23 prejudice. 24 Plaintiff also pleads no facts identifying a violation of the Sixth Amendment. However, even 25 if Plaintiff seeks to proceed with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, that claim must be raised 26 through a habeas corpus petition. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) Thus, the Court 27 recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment claim without prejudice and without leave to 1 c. Plaintiff’s Additional Claims. 2 1. Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Claim. 3 Plaintiff may be attempting to bring a claim based on an arrest he claims was in violation of 4 the Fourth Amendment. However, and at best, there are insufficient facts alleged to state such a 5 claim. While “a warrantless arrest by a law enforcement officer is reasonable under the Fourth 6 Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed” 7 (Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004), “‘an arrest without probable cause violates the 8 Fourth Amendment and gives rise to a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.’” Rosenbaum v. 9 Washoe Cnty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Borunda v. Richmond, 885 F.2d 1384, 10 1391 (9th Cir. 1988)). “Whether probable cause exists depends upon the reasonable conclusion to 11 be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest.” Devenpeck, 543 12 U.S. at 152. If the officers arresting Plaintiff had a warrant for his arrest, there is no constitutional 13 violation. Peacock v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 199 F.Supp.2d 306, 309 (D. Md. 2002) (“It is 14 well established that when an arrest and subsequent detention are undertaken pursuant to a facially 15 valid warrant, there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment.”). 16 Plaintiff pleads he was arrested on a warrant for failing to register and also, at least 17 potentially, for displaying a knife to “an older woman ….” ECF No. 1-1 at 3. While the arrest on a 18 warrant would not state a Fourth Amendment violation, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is alleging he 19 was arrested at all for allegedly displaying a knife or the arrest was solely for the registry violation. 20 It is also unclear whether, if there was an arrest for displaying a knife, that arrest occurred with or 21 without a warrant. 22 The Court recommends Plaintiff’s claim regarding his arrest on a warrant for failing to 23 register be dismissed with prejudice as this claim does not state a violation of the Fourth Amendment. 24 With respect to Plaintiff’s potential claim that he was arrested for displaying a knife, this is dismissed 25 without prejudice and with one opportunity to amend. 26 2. Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Claims. 27 It is unclear if Plaintiff’s allegations regarding being placed in a dry cell for four days without 1 while the Fourteenth Amendment applies pre-conviction. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671 2 n.40 (1977) (“Eighth Amendment scrutiny is appropriate only after the State has complied with the 3 constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions.”); Youngberg v. 4 Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-24 (1982) (applying the Fourteenth Amendment to pre-conviction 5 claims). 6 A pre-trial detainee bringing a Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement claim must 7 show the conditions under which that detainee was confined “put the plaintiff at substantial risk of 8 suffering serious harm.” Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (en 9 banc). Pre-commitment detainees are “entitled to protections at least as great as those afforded to [ 10 ] civilly committed individual[s] and at least as great as those afforded to [ ] individual[s] accused 11 but not convicted of a crime.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 932 (9th Cir. 2004). By contrast, post- 12 conviction, a confined individual will not succeed by showing that a condition of confinement put 13 him at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; rather, the Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual 14 Punishment standard requires the post-conviction plaintiff to show the condition of confinement 15 caused “suffering ... inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 16 U.S. 97 (1976); see also, e.g., Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). 17 Because Plaintiff does not plead whether he was pre or post-conviction when he was 18 allegedly left in a dry cell for four days without adequate food, the Court does not know whether the 19 Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment applies. Thus, this claim is dismissed without prejudice and with 20 leave to amend allowing Plaintiff to identify whether he was pre or post-conviction. Plaintiff must 21 add sufficient facts to support his claim under the appropriate amendment. 22 III. Recommendation 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the following be dismissed with prejudice: 24 • Plaintiff’s claims of kidnapping, conspiracy, and involving “Obama” and a 25 telephone; 26 • Plaintiff’s claims alleging First, Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations; and 27 • Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim arising from his arrest on a warrant for failure 1 IV. Order 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 3 No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff an application to 5 proceed in forma pauperis for an incarcerated person and the instructions for filing the same. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must complete the in forma pauperis form and 7 file it with the Clerk of Court no later than July 27, 2026. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim relating to his arrest 9 for displaying a knife to an older woman and his Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim arising 10 from his alleged placement in a dry cell without adequate food for four days is dismissed without 11 prejudice and with one opportunity to amend. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint he must 13 do so no later than July 27, 2026. The amended complaint must be titled “AMENDED 14 COMPLAINT” and must be legible—written so that the contents can be read and understood. The 15 amended complaint must state facts demonstrating identified defendants engaged in specific acts 16 that allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth and Eighth or Fourteenth 17 Amendment. General assertions untethered to specific defendants are insufficient to state a claim. 18 A conclusion stating that a constitutional violation took place is also insufficient to state a claim. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to timely comply with the requirement to file a 20 complete in forma pauperis application and amended complaint by July 27, 2026, will result in a 21 recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s case in its entirety. 22 Dated this 25th day of June, 2026. 23

24 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 1 NOTICE 2 Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in 3 writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court holds 4 the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections 5 within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). The Ninth Circuit also held 6 that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and 7 brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 8 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 9 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27