Roberson v. Henderson Police Department

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 17, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00541
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 MAX E. ROBERSON, CASE No: 2:22-cv-00541-JAD-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 vs.

7 HENDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT,

8 Defendant.

9 Pending before the court is Defendant Henderson Police Department’s Motion to Stay 10 Discovery. ECF No. 14. The court has considered Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff’s Response, and 11 Defendant’s Reply. 12 I. Background 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts civil rights violations against Defendant arising from Plaintiff’s 14 encounters with Henderson police officers in or around April 2020. On April 6, 2022, Defendant 15 filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 4. Defendant argues dismissal is proper because Plaintiff fails 16 to allege sufficient facts to state a claim under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 17 (1978). The decision in Monell establishes the basis upon which liability may be found against a 18 municipality for constitutional violations. Id. Plaintiff responds to Defendant’s Motion reiterating 19 his allegations very succinctly. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff has not sought leave to file an amended 20 complaint. 21 II. Discussion 22 Generally, a dispositive motion does not warrant a stay of discovery. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, 23 Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). However, a court may limit discovery for good cause and 24 continue to stay discovery when it is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for 25 relief. Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing B.R.S. Land Investors v. United 26 States, 596 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1978)). Under certain circumstances it is an abuse of discretion to 27 deny discovery while a dispositive motion is pending (Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602) and, for this 1 reason, a party seeking a stay of discovery carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why 2 the discovery process should be halted. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 3 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). 4 When deciding whether to issue a stay, a court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits 5 of the dispositive motion pending in the case. Buckwalter v. Nevada Bd. of Medical Examiners, No. 6 2:10-cv-02034-KJD-GWF, 2011 WL 841391, at *1 (D. Nev. March 7, 2011). In doing so, the court 7 must consider whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, and whether 8 that motion can be decided without additional discovery. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 9 When reviewing the merits of a motion to dismiss, the Court adopts a standard that best 10 effectuates Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 goals for the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” determination of actions. 11 Id. at 602-03. Even if discovery will involve inconvenience and expense, this is insufficient, without 12 more, to support a stay of discovery. Turner Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. at 556. Further, motions to 13 dismiss are frequently part of federal practice and “[a]n overly lenient standard for granting motions 14 to stay all discovery is likely to result in unnecessary delay in many cases.” Trzaska v. Int’l Game 15 Tech., Case No. 2:10-cv-02268-JCM-GWF, 2011 WL 1233298, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011). For 16 this reason, courts in the U.S. District of Nevada hold that “[a] stay of all discovery should only be 17 ordered if the court is ‘convinced’ that a plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.” Tradebay, 18 278 F.R.D. at 603 (discussing holdings of Twin City Fire Ins. v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 19 652 (D. Nev. 1989), and Turner Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. 554). 20 After taking a preliminary peek at the pending Motion to Dismiss, the Response, and the 21 Reply, the Court finds Defendant’s Motion will likely be granted (albeit Plaintiff is likely to be given 22 an opportunity to amend). The standard established for pleading a claim in federal court requires 23 more than labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim. Ashcroft v. 24 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A 25 complaint that lacks a “plausible claim for relief” will not survive a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 26 U.S. at 679 (internal citation omitted). If the facts alleged “do no permit the court to infer more than 27 the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not shown[n] – that the 1 not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant- 2 unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. at 678 (internal quote marks and citation omitted). A 3 pleading is plausible only where the court may draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is 4 liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. (internal citation omitted) “Where a complaint pleads facts 5 that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility 6 and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (internal quote marks and citation omitted). 7 Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint is two sentences long and alleges Defendant violated the Fifth 8 Amendment by forcefully interrogating him without providing Miranda warnings. Plaintiff does 9 not identify the individuals who allegedly engaged in this conduct or any other details about the 10 alleged interrogation. Indeed, Plaintiff’s allegations are wholly insufficient to support the conclusion 11 that he suffered a “forced” interrogation or that the Henderson Police Department should be held 12 liable for such conduct under Monell. In sum, after review, the Court is convinced that, as presently 13 pleaded, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed. Conducting discovery on the bare allegations made 14 will not effectuate the goals of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 III. Order 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF 17 No. 14) is GRANTED. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendant is successful on its Motion to Dismiss, but 19 Plaintiff is granted leave to amend and Plaintiff does so, the parties must file either a discovery plan 20 and scheduling order or, if Defendant intends to file a second motion to dismiss, a status report so 21 stating. In either case the filing must occur no later than ten (10) day after the date on which Plaintiff 22 files his amended complaint. 23 Dated this 17th day of August, 2022.

25 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27