Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Cooper v. Clark County

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 4, 2015

DAVID COOPER, et al., Plaintiffs,
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, et al., Defendants.


KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleading[s] (#130). Plaintiffs responded (#135), and Defendants replied (#136). Defendants seek dismissal of all present and past Clark County Commissioners as defendants in their individual capacities, including Defendants Woodbury, Collins, Giunchigliani, Weekly, Brager, Reid, and Maxfield. Defendants assert that quasi-judicial absolute immunity attaches for the Commissioners' denial of Plaintiffs' business license. Plaintiffs argue that the conduct at issue is not the denial of the business license, but rather "allow[ing] others to maintain swingers club establishments' while denying Mr. Cooper the same opportunity." (#135). This decidedly awkward formulation of the question must be clarified before turning to the merits of the motion.

Plaintiffs' claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations regarding Due Process, Equal Protection, and vagueness (##8, 56). However, § 1983 is available only for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws...." The "rights" in question must be federal and not state rights. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). "The very purpose of § 1983 [is] to... [guard] the people's federal rights." Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 242 (1972) (emphasis added). Further, § 1983 addresses only "the violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law. " Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340 (1997).

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs have asserted the violation of federal rights, including Due Process and Equal Protection. However, Plaintiffs have not - and cannot - assert a federal right against Clark County allowing swingers' clubs.[1] Only when the Commissioners denied Plaintiffs' business license did the claims of Due Process and Equal Protection violations become viable. Again, Plaintiffs have failed to articulate, let alone establish, that they possess any federal right prohibiting Clark County from allowing swingers' clubs. Thus, the Commissioners are tied to this action only by their decision to deny Plaintiffs' business license, giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims of Due Process and Equal Protection violations. The Court will now turn to whether the Commissioners' decision is entitled to immunity.

I. Legal Standards

A. Judgment on the Pleadings

"A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all allegations in the pleading as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." McGann v. Ernst & Young, 102 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 1996).

B. Quasi-Judicial Absolute Immunity

Immunity is "an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). Thus, immunity is "an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and... it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Id. at 526 (emphasis in original).

"[I]n determining immunity, we examine the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it." Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 127 (1997) (internal quotations omitted). Some functions so closely mirror the judicial process that they are entitled to absolute immunity. Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 202 (1985). In determining whether quasi-judicial absolute immunity attaches, the Court must consider the six nonexclusive factors first articulated in Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978), and subsequently cataloged in Cleavinger. These factors include:

(a) the need to assure that the individual can perform his functions without harassment or intimidation; (b) the presence of safeguards that reduce the need for private damages actions as a means of controlling unconstitutional conduct; (c) insulation from political influence; (d) the importance of precedent; (e) the adversary nature of the process; and (f) the correctability of error on appeal.

Cleavinger, 474 U.S. at 202.

II. Analysis

To begin, the Court notes that Plaintiffs "[do] not necessarily disagree" that the Commissioners are absolutely immune for their denial of Plaintiffs' business license (#135). However, Plaintiffs do not even attempt to analyze the above factors, nor advance any relevant legal argument against dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiffs consent to the granting of the motion. See Local Rule 7-2. Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, the Court will satisfy itself regarding the proper resolution of Defendants' motion. To be clear, ...

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.