Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kadmiri v. Rich

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 11, 2014

Joey Kadmiri, Plaintiff
v.
Jason Rich and John Hoffman, Defendants

Joey Kadmiri, Plaintiff, Pro se, Las Vegas, NV.

For Jason Rich, LVMPD Detective, John Hoffman, LVMPD Detective, Defendants: Lyssa S Anderson, Kaempfer Crowell, Las Vegas, NV.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Jennifer A. Dorsey, United States District Judge.

This civil-rights action arises out of plaintiff Joey Kadmiri's arrest for suspected theft. Kadmiri filed suit on May 26, 2011, and has not filed anything since submitting a change-of-address notice on February 8, 2012.[1] Notices sent to him have been returned as undeliverable since February 27, 2012, though Kadmiri attended a motion hearing before Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen on September 18, 2012.[2] Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (" Metro") officers Jason Rich and John Hoffman filed a motion for summary judgment on January 7, 2013, which Kadmiri has wholly failed to oppose.[3] After reviewing the record and law, I grant the defendants' motion.[4]

Background

Jennifer Zatkovich is a medical assistant in a Las Vegas doctor's office.[5] In the morning of November 21, 2009, she left her purse on her office chair, only to return and find Kadmiri standing in her office.[6] He said he was looking for a patient and kept stuttering; she directed him to the waiting room.[7] After a patient identified Kadmiri as her son and asked for him, Zatkovich looked for him, but he was not in the waiting room and his car was gone.[8] Zatkovich soon discovered that her wallet was missing from her purse.[9] Around 1 PM, she saw the patient walk out to her ride's vehicle, a black Mercedes.[10] The credit-card company later told her that her card was used at the Speedee Mart located at 9301 W. Sahara Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada at 12:47 p.m.[11] According to John Fredrickson, who works in Speedee Mart management, Zatkovich's card was used at two Speedee Mart pumps.[12] Surveillance video showed a black car parked at one of these pumps; the vehicle with it was a green SUV.[13] Officer Rich also urges that a still surveillance shot of an occupant of the green SUV, taken inside the Speedee Mart, matched a booking photograph of Kadmiri that was previously taken at the Clark County Detention Center.[14]

Officer Rich argues that he was the only person who swore out the declaration on which an arrest warrant issued against Kadmiri.[15] Kadmiri was subsequently charged in state court with having Zatkovich's credit card in his possession with the intent to defraud her.[16] In a separate complaint, he was charged with escaping, or trying to escape, from the lawful custody of Officers Rich and Hoffman as they held him on the credit-card-related charge.[17] Kadmiri pled guilty to escape on September 22, 2011.[18] In his plea negotiations, the other charge against him was dropped.[19]

Officer Hoffman attests that the only function he performed in conjunction with this case was assisting Officer Rich in carrying out an arrest warrant against Kadmiri on March 16, 2010.[20] The summary-judgment motion argues the reasons Officer Rich had probable cause when he swore out a declaration on which a warrant issued against Kadmiri, [21] but Officer Rich does not provide any affidavit or declaration describing how he was involved in Kadmiri's arrest.

In a screening order, the magistrate judge found that Kadmiri stated two claims: false arrest and false imprisonment.[22] He failed to state a conspiracy claim and was permitted 30 days to amend his complaint on that count, but Kadmiri never did.[23]

Discussion

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and admissible evidence " show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." [24] When considering summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.[25] If reasonable minds could differ on material facts, summary judgment is inappropriate because summary judgment's purpose is to avoid unnecessary trials when the facts are undisputed, and the case must then proceed to the trier of fact.[26]

If the moving party satisfies Rule 56 by demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the party resisting summary judgment to " set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." [27] The nonmoving party " must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts"; he " must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that" there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact finder could find in his favor.[28] The court only considers properly authenticated, admissible evidence in deciding a motion for summary judgment.[29]

Kadmiri's complaint alleges that Officer Rich willfully and wantonly committed " [c]rimes against public justice by executing, signing, and stating false probable cause" by declaring that he could " positively identify plaintiff as suspect, upon comparing booking photo with video still." [30] He appears to characterize this conduct as both false arrest and false imprisonment. But the Ninth Circuit recognizes that " if a plaintiff has alleged conduct that clearly amounts to false arrest, but has called his claim one for 'false imprisonment, ' the court will not simply accept that latter characterization." [31] I therefore construe Kadmiri's allegations as a single claim for false arrest.[32]

Defendants argue that the Supreme Court's 1994 Heck v. Humphrey decision prevents Kadmiri from maintaining a claim for false arrest.[33 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.