Williams v. Ryals

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 11, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00133
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 TERRANCE E. WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:21-cv-00133-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 RYALS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Terrance E. Williams brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 12 against Defendants Wueper, Santos, and Reza for using excessive force against him 13 while he was detained at Washoe County Detention Facility. (ECF No. 7.) Before the 14 Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States 15 Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb1 (ECF No. 39, 40), recommending the Court deny 16 Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 21) without prejudice, 17 and deny Defendant Reza’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22).2 The parties 18 had until February 3, 2022, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been 19 filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will deny 20 both motions. 21 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 23 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 24 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 25 1Due to Judge Cobb’s retirement, this case has been reassigned to U.S. 26 Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. 27 2Also pending before the Court are Defendants’ motions in limine (ECF Nos. 30, 28 36) and Defendant Santos’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43). The Court will 1 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 2 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 3 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 4 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 5 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 6 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 7 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 8 satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends the Court deny 9 Reza and Santos’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings without prejudice.3 (ECF 10 No. 39 at 3-4.) Defendants argue that Ryals may not proceed with official capacity 11 damages claims against them because such claims are barred by the Eleventh 12 Amendment. (ECF No. 21 at 1.) Judge Cobb reasoned that because Defendants are 13 county employees, not state employees, sovereign immunity does not necessarily bar 14 Ryals’ official capacity damages claims. (ECF No. 39 at 3.) Indeed, the Supreme Court 15 expressly acknowledged that, for Monell liability purposes, “[s]tates are protected by the 16 Eleventh Amendment while municipalities are not.” Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 17 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). The Court must consider whether officers are acting as state or local 18 government officers, which Judge Cobb reasoned was not immediately apparent from the 19 pleadings. (ECF No. 39 at 3.) The Court agrees, and will therefore adopt the R&R and 20 deny Defendants’ motion for judgment on the official capacity issue without prejudice. 21 Judge Cobb further recommends denying Defendant Reza’s motion for summary 22 judgment.4 (ECF No. 40.) Defendant argues that summary judgment is appropriate 23 because she is entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF Nos. 22, 27.) There is no dispute that 24 failure to intervene in a situation where a fellow officer is using excessive force is a clearly 25 established constitutional violation. (ECF No. 40 at 5.) Ryals argues Defendant Reza 26

27 3Ryals did not file a response.

28 4Defendant Reza filed a supplement to his motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 1 || could have used a verbal command to stop her fellow officers from assaulting him or that 2 || Reza could have deescalated the situation before pepper bombs were deployed—in other 3 || words, that she could have intervened but chose not to. (ECF No. at 5-6.) Judge Cobb 4 || concluded that because Reza did not provide an affidavit or declaration stating she had 5 || no opportunity to intervene, there exists a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 6 || she is entitled to qualified immunity.® (/d. at 6.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. Having 7 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 8 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9 || 39, 40) is accepted and adopted in full. 10 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings 11 || (ECF No. 21) is denied without prejudice. 12 Itis further ordered that Defendant Reza’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13 || 22) is denied. 14 DATED THIS 11" Day of February 2022. 15 16 C

17 MfRANDA M. DU 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a7 *Judge Cobb further noted that he was not convinced that “being assigned the role 28 || of filming a cell extraction automatically insulates a defendant from liability” for failing to intervene against excessive force. The Court agrees.