1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 TIMOTHY W. BIELER, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00417-ART-CSD 4 Plaintiff Order
5 v. Re: ECF No. 9 6 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Washoe County Detention Facility (“WCDF”), 10 filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On 11 February 12, 2026, the District Judge adopted this court’s report and recommendation, granting 12 Plaintiff’s IFP application and dismissing the complaint -- with prejudice as to the State of 13 Nevada and U.S.A. and without prejudice, with leave to amend, in all other respects. (See ECF 14 No. 5.)
15 On March 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 9), which the court 16 now screens. 17 I.SCREENING 18 A.Standard 19 Under the statute governing IFP proceedings, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time 20 if the court determines that-- (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal-- 21 (i)is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) 22 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 23 §1915(e)(2)(A), (B)(i)-(iii). 1 In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, “[t]he court shall review, before docketing, if 2 feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in 3 which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 4 governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In conducting this review, the court “shall identify
5 cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-- 6 (1)is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks 7 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 8 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is 9 provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 10 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) track that language. As such, when reviewing the adequacy of a 11 complaint under these statutes, the court applies the same standard as is applied under Rule 12 12(b)(6). See e.g. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Review under Rule 13 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of America, 232 14 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
15 The court must accept as true the allegations, construe the pleadings in the light most 16 favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 17 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). Allegations in pro se complaints are “held to less 18 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 19 (1980) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 20 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 21 action,” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the 22 speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “The pleading 23 must contain something more … than … a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] 1 a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). At a minimum, a 2 plaintiff should include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 3 570; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 4 A dismissal should not be without leave to amend unless it is clear from the face of the
5 complaint that the action is frivolous and could not be amended to state a federal claim, or the 6 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 7 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). 8 B.Plaintiff’s Complaint 9 Initially, the court notes that Plaintiff again has named the State of Nevada. The court’s 10 order of February 12, 2026, dismissed the State of Nevada with prejudice. The State of Nevada is 11 not therefore a proper party to the complaint. 12 In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges a claim of false arrest/imprisonment. He 13 asserts he was arrested on January 5, 2025, and kept in detention at Washoe County Detention 14 Facility for eight days on unknown charges. He was released with “File Not Found” paperwork.
15 He asserts he does not remember anything due to being plunged in cold water. (ECF No. 9 at 3.) 16 The Fourth Amendment guarantees a citizen’s right to be free from “unreasonable 17 searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under 18 §1983 as a violation of the Fourth Amendment provided the arrest was without probable cause 19 or other justification.” Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation 20 omitted); Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 580 U.S. 357, 367 (2017) (“The Fourth Amendment 21 prohibits government officials from detaining a person in the absence of probable cause.”). 22 “Probable cause exists if the arresting officers had knowledge and reasonably trustworthy 23 information of facts and circumstances sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe that [the 1 arrestee] had committed or was committing a crime.” Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 2 1086, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 3 Like the original complaint, the amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state 4 a plausible claim of false arrest/imprisonment against any named defendant. Plaintiff does not
5 identify who – even if a John or Jane Doe defendant – was involved in his arrest and detention, 6 and he neither alleges that he was arrested without probable cause nor provides facts sufficient to 7 support a reasonable inference of such. As Plaintiff was previously advised, a complaint will fail 8 to state a claim if Plaintiff does not allege how each officer, even if unidentified, was involved in 9 the constitutional violations Plaintiff claims. As before, Plaintiff’s complaint lacks these 10 allegations and therefore fails to state a claim against any Doe defendant.
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 TIMOTHY W. BIELER, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00417-ART-CSD 4 Plaintiff Order
5 v. Re: ECF No. 9 6 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Washoe County Detention Facility (“WCDF”), 10 filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On 11 February 12, 2026, the District Judge adopted this court’s report and recommendation, granting 12 Plaintiff’s IFP application and dismissing the complaint -- with prejudice as to the State of 13 Nevada and U.S.A. and without prejudice, with leave to amend, in all other respects. (See ECF 14 No. 5.)
15 On March 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 9), which the court 16 now screens. 17 I.SCREENING 18 A.Standard 19 Under the statute governing IFP proceedings, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time 20 if the court determines that-- (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal-- 21 (i)is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) 22 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 23 §1915(e)(2)(A), (B)(i)-(iii). 1 In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, “[t]he court shall review, before docketing, if 2 feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in 3 which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 4 governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In conducting this review, the court “shall identify
5 cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-- 6 (1)is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks 7 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 8 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is 9 provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 10 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) track that language. As such, when reviewing the adequacy of a 11 complaint under these statutes, the court applies the same standard as is applied under Rule 12 12(b)(6). See e.g. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Review under Rule 13 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of America, 232 14 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
15 The court must accept as true the allegations, construe the pleadings in the light most 16 favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 17 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). Allegations in pro se complaints are “held to less 18 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 19 (1980) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 20 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 21 action,” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the 22 speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “The pleading 23 must contain something more … than … a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] 1 a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). At a minimum, a 2 plaintiff should include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 3 570; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 4 A dismissal should not be without leave to amend unless it is clear from the face of the
5 complaint that the action is frivolous and could not be amended to state a federal claim, or the 6 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 7 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). 8 B.Plaintiff’s Complaint 9 Initially, the court notes that Plaintiff again has named the State of Nevada. The court’s 10 order of February 12, 2026, dismissed the State of Nevada with prejudice. The State of Nevada is 11 not therefore a proper party to the complaint. 12 In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges a claim of false arrest/imprisonment. He 13 asserts he was arrested on January 5, 2025, and kept in detention at Washoe County Detention 14 Facility for eight days on unknown charges. He was released with “File Not Found” paperwork.
15 He asserts he does not remember anything due to being plunged in cold water. (ECF No. 9 at 3.) 16 The Fourth Amendment guarantees a citizen’s right to be free from “unreasonable 17 searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under 18 §1983 as a violation of the Fourth Amendment provided the arrest was without probable cause 19 or other justification.” Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation 20 omitted); Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 580 U.S. 357, 367 (2017) (“The Fourth Amendment 21 prohibits government officials from detaining a person in the absence of probable cause.”). 22 “Probable cause exists if the arresting officers had knowledge and reasonably trustworthy 23 information of facts and circumstances sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe that [the 1 arrestee] had committed or was committing a crime.” Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 2 1086, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 3 Like the original complaint, the amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state 4 a plausible claim of false arrest/imprisonment against any named defendant. Plaintiff does not
5 identify who – even if a John or Jane Doe defendant – was involved in his arrest and detention, 6 and he neither alleges that he was arrested without probable cause nor provides facts sufficient to 7 support a reasonable inference of such. As Plaintiff was previously advised, a complaint will fail 8 to state a claim if Plaintiff does not allege how each officer, even if unidentified, was involved in 9 the constitutional violations Plaintiff claims. As before, Plaintiff’s complaint lacks these 10 allegations and therefore fails to state a claim against any Doe defendant. 11 Further, Plaintiff now brings claims against Washoe County Detention Facility and 12 Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, in addition to the City of Reno and Washoe County. However, 13 each of these defendants is a municipality, which may be held liable under § 1983 only under 14 certain circumstances. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-95 (1978).
15 A municipality may not be sued under a respondeat superior theory because it employed 16 an alleged wrongdoer. Horton by Horton v. City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 17 2019). Rather, a municipality may be liable under § 1983 for “constitutional injuries pursuant to 18 (1)an official policy; (2) a pervasive practice or custom; (3) a failure to train, supervise or 19 discipline; or (4) a decision or act by a final policymaker.” Id. at 602-03. “To impose liability on 20 a municipality under Section 1983, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) [the plaintiff] had a constitutional 21 right of which he was deprived; (2) the municipality had a policy; (3) the policy amounts to 22 deliberate indifference to [the plaintiff’s] constitutional right; and (4) the policy is the moving 23 1 force behind the constitutional violation.” Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 6 F.4th 961, 973 (9th Cir. 2 2021) (Gordon II) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 3 Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any facts sufficient to support a claim of municipal 4 liability and accordingly fails to state a claim as to the City of Reno, Washoe County, Washoe
5 County Detention Facility, and Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. 6 The first amended complaint will therefore be dismissed, but the court will grant Plaintiff 7 an additional opportunity to amend his complaint to address the deficiencies outlined above. 8 C.Motion for Appointment of Counsel 9 Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 9 at 5.) “[A] person 10 [generally] has no right to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 11 Cir. 2009) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)). 28 U.S.C. § 12 1915(e)(1), however, does allow the court to “request an attorney to represent any person unable 13 to afford counsel.” That being said, the appointment of counsel in a civil case is within the 14 court’s discretion and is only allowed in “exceptional cases.” See Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970
15 (citations omitted); see also Harrington v. Scribner, 785 F.3d 1299, 1309 (9th Cir. 2015). 16 In “determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 17 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims 18 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting 19 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1213, 20 1218 (9th Cir. 2015). 21 At this juncture, Plaintiff has failed to state any claim for relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 22 motion for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice. 23 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 (1) The first amended complaint (ECF No. 9) is DISMISSED WITHOUT 3 PREJUDICE, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 4 (2) The motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 9 at 5) is DENIED WITHOUT 5 PREJUDICE. 6 (3) The Clerk shall SEND Plaintiff the instructions for filing a civil nghts complaint by 7 an incarcerated individual and form civil rights complaint by an inmate. 8 (4) Plaintiff has 30 DAYS from the date of this Order to file a second amended complaint 9 curing the deficiencies noted above. The second amended complaint must be complete in 10 and of itself without referring or incorporating by reference any previous complaint. Any 11 allegations, parties, or requests for relief from a prior complaint that are not carried 12 forwarded in the amended complaint will no longer be before the court. Plaintiff shall 13 check the box for the second amended complaint on the court’s form civil rights 14 complaint and list this case number in the caption. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended 15 complaint within the 30 days, this action may be dismissed. 16) IT IS SO ORDERED. 17|| Dated: April 2, 2026 18 CS oy Craig S. Denney, 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23