Tate v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

3 Xavier Tate, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01559-JAD-DJA

4 Plaintiff

5 v. Order

6 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 10 Plaintiff Xavier Tate brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada law, contending 11 that his federal and state rights were violated when a corrections officer used excessive force 12 against him, left him naked in a cell, and called him racial slurs while he was a pretrial detainee 13 at Clark County Detention Center.1 Tate was not detained or incarcerated as of the complaint’s 14 filing,2 and the defendants have paid the full $405 filing fee for this removed civil action.3 15 Because Tate is neither a “prisoner” within the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s meaning nor 16 proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is not subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. 17 §§ 1915A or 1915(e)(2).4 18 1 ECF No. 1-1. 19 2 See id. at ¶ 16. 20 3 ECF No. 1. 4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (defining “prisoner” and requiring courts to screen complaints filed by 21 prisoners who seek redress from governmental entities, officers, or employees); see Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. Dep’t of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that “28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A applies only to claims brought by individuals incarcerated at the time they file their complaints”); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that 23 screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) applies to actions filed in forma pauperis whether or not the plaintiff is incarcerated). ] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the court will not enter an order screening the 2|| plaintiff's complaint; rather, this case will proceed immediately onto the normal litigation track 3] under the applicable local and federal civil procedural rules. 4 Dated: September 17, 2025 2 es USS. District udge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23