Tate v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

D. Nevada

Tate v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

DecidedSeptember 17, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01559

StatusUnknown

This text of Tate v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Tate v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tate v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tate v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-las-vegas-metropolitan-police-department-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack