Case Number: 2019-009820

Plaintiff sues multiple defendants for events that took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Nye County Jail in Pahrump, Nevada. Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff was taken into the custody of the Sheriff’s department. At that time, Plaintiff requested psychiatric medication because he was suffering from insomnia and he had been without it since his original arrest. Plaintiff’s request was denied. Plaintiff sat in isolation for over four months and was not treated with psychiatric services during that time, resulting in an incompetent ruling. Plaintiff was later given psychiatric medication, but was denied a second competency evaluation and forced to wait in custody for another six months to be transported back to a psychiatric institution to complete a ninety-day evaluation in eight business days. The Court interprets this claim as one for deliberate indifference. A pretrial detainee’s right to be free from punishment is grounded in the Due Process Clause, but courts borrow from Eighth Amendment jurisprudence when analyzing the rights of pretrial detainees. Plaintiff alleges after consistently taking his prescribed psychiatric medication for ten months, his prescription ran out. Plaintiff went downstairs to speak with the sergeants responsible for the jail’s operations. Plaintiff was grabbed by two sheriff’s deputies on each arm, pulled in separate directions, and shot in the stomach with a Taser. The Court interprets this allegation as one for excessive force. Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff was sent to disciplinary detention “after walking into a trap set by [the] Jail’s senior administration.” Plaintiff was unlawfully held in disciplinary lockdown for five months. Plaintiff alleges a due process violation. Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff’s psychiatric medications ran out again. Based on the allegations, Plaintiff was denied his psychiatric medication for a period of three days and forced to destabilize through “cold turkey cut off.” The Court finds that Plaintiff states a colorable deliberate indifference claim and will allow the claim to proceed against Defendants.

Case Number: 2019-000707

This civil rights and state law battery case was referred for pro bono placement by Court Judge. In the complaint, Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, sues multiple defendants for events that took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”). On November 15, 2015, Defendant Officer told Plaintiff to “cuff up” because Plaintiff had a visitor. After Plaintiff cuffed up and the door opened, Defendant Officer grabbed Plaintiff’s shirt and directed Plaintiff to the stairs. As they neared the stairs, Plaintiff stopped to avoid getting pushed down the stairs. Defendant Officer interrupted the stop as resistance and slammed Plaintiff to the ground. Defendant Officer put his knee on the side of Plaintiff’s face and wrenched and twisted Plaintiff’s wrists. Officer asked Defendant what he was doing and said “to be easy.” Defendant Officer got on the radio and called his Sergeant who punished Plaintiff for whatever Defendant Officer had told him. Plaintiff missed his attorney visit and suffered from bruises and severe wrist abrasions. The officers harassed Plaintiff because he threatened to sue them for opening his legal mail during a cell search. Plaintiff alleges excessive force and a state law claim for assault and battery against Defendant Officer. The Court finds that Plaintiff states a colorable claim for excessive force. The Court will permit the state law claim of assault and battery to proceed against Defendant Officer based on supplemental jurisdiction.

Plaintiff alleges the following: On November 16, 2016, Officer woke up Plaintiff to give him medication. Sargent told Plaintiff that if Plaintiff did not move then Plaintiff would be moved by force. The SERT Team sprayed chemicals in Plaintiff’s room which caused Plaintiff to cough, choke, and spit up saliva. While Plaintiff was choking, the SERT Team stuck a shotgun in the room. An officer shot Plaintiff’s hand. The metal box that was supposed to hold the rubber ball malfunctioned and clacked around Plaintiff’s cell after accidentally being ejected from the shotgun. The malfunctioning shot gun broke Plaintiff’s finger. One of the SERT officers grabbed Plaintiff’s bloody, broken finger and twisted it. Jail officials left Plaintiff naked and bleeding in the cell for eight hours with an open wound. Jail officials took Plaintiff’s pain medication away and did not permit Plaintiff to see a doctor for two months. Plaintiff was not able to take a shower and rinse the chemicals off for four days to a week. The Court finds that Plaintiff states a colorable claim for excessive force.

Plaintiff alleges the following: Since November 16, 2016, Plaintiff has been in constant pain and discomfort due to his crippled and deformed hand. Two months later, an outside specialist told Plaintiff that he would suffer from arthritis for the rest of his life and that it was too late for surgery because his finger had healed broken. The specialist, an orthopedic doctor, told Plaintiff that it would be unwise to re-break or re-set his finger because he had waited too long for it to be operated. Jail officials kept Plaintiff in a cell covered with urine and feces for four days while his finger bled. The Court finds that Plaintiff states a colorable claim for serious medical needs.

Case Number: 2020-001206 (pending placement)

This case was referred by a Court Judge. Plaintiff sues for events that took place at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). He seeks injunctive relief and damages. Plaintiff alleges that on March 23, 2015, he informed the HDSP medical department that he had discovered an odd growth on his knee area. (ECF No. 1-1 at 6.) Medical staff did not respond in time, and after a year the growth continued to grow and eventually burst, prompting an emergency surgery. Plaintiff states that the pain was so excruciating that it prompted the need for an outside physician. The surgery left Plaintiff’s leg deformed and Plaintiff lost some of its functionality. Now, NDOC fails to provide Plaintiff with follow ups. The Court construes the Plaintiff’s claim as an Eighth Amendment claim and finds that the Plaintiff states a colorable claim under the Eighth Amendment.