Vincent Boyd v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01577
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 Vincent Boyd, Case No. 2:25-cv-01577-APG-NJK 6 Plaintiff, ORDER 7 v.

8 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 9 Defendant. 10 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 11 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. 12 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 13 Plaintiff filed an affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an 14 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the application to proceed 15 in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Clerk’s 16 Office is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint on the docket. 17 II. Screening the Complaint 18 Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or 19 malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from 20 a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When a court dismisses a 21 complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions 22 as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies 23 could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 24 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 25 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 26 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 27 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 28 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 1 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 2 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 3 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 4 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 5 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 6 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 7 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 8 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 9 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 10 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 11 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 12 Plaintiff’s complaint seeks to bring a claim against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 13 Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Docket No. 1-1 at 2. Local governments, such as 14 municipalities, cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. Monell v. 15 Dept. of Soc. Serv. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Local governments can instead be 16 sued only for “a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and 17 promulgated by that body’s officers” or for a “governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom 18 has not received formal approval through the body’s official decisionmaking channels.” Id. at 19 690-91. A plaintiff may also establish Monell liability by proving that an official with final policy- 20 making authority ratified a subordinate’s unconstitutional decision or action and the basis for it. 21 Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 6 F.4th 961, 974 (9th Cir. 2021). 22 Plaintiff’s case centers on allegations that unidentified police officers used excessive force. 23 See, e.g., Docket No. 1-1 at 3-4. Plaintiff makes no allegations as to Las Vegas Metropolitan 24 Police Department. Assuming Plaintiff is alleging that the police offers were employed by Las 25 Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, such allegations would be insufficient to plead a claim for 26 Monell liability. See, e.g., Christie v. Iopa, 176 F.3d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1999) (“A single 27 constitutional deprivation ordinarily is insufficient to establish a longstanding practice or 28 custom”). 1 In light of the above, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Las Vegas Metropolitan 2 Police Department. “Generally, a plaintiff who names municipal entities without Monell 3 allegations will be given an opportunity to amend the complaint.” Nelson v. Inyo County Sheriffs 4 Dept., 2007 WL 2711399, at *5 n.3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2007). It seems unlikely that Plaintiff 5 could cure the deficiency identified, but leave to amend will be provided to err on the side of 6 caution. 7 III. Conclusion 8 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) is GRANTED. 10 Plaintiff shall not be required to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain 11 this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or 12 costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma 13 pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government 14 expense. 15 2. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to file Plaintiff’s complaint on the docket. 16 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until 17 November 24, 2025, to file an amended complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be 18 corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the 19 Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) in order to make the 20 amended complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 21 supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended 22 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff 23 files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the 24 case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and 25 the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 26 27 28 1 4. Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline set above will result in the 2 recommended dismissal of this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 27, 2025.

Nancy J. Keppe 6 United States Magistrate Judge , 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28