United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
(“LVMPD” and Joseph Lombardo's (collectively
“the LVMPD defendants”) motion to dismiss. (ECF
No. 5). Plaintiff Michael Foley has not filed a response, and
the time for doing so has since passed.
before the court is defendant Steven Grierson's motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff has not filed a response,
and the time for doing so has since passed.
before the court is defendant Merle Lok's motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff has not filed a response,
and the time for doing so has since passed.
before the court is defendants Kenneth Bourne, Kurt Graham,
Steven Wolfson, Edward Ewert, and Clark County's
(collectively “the Clark County defendants”)
motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff has not filed a
response, and the time for doing so has since passed.
before the court is defendants Pamela Norton-Lindemuth and
Carol Erbach's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff
has not filed a response, and the time for doing so has since
an action for compensatory and injunctive relief against
defendants, whom plaintiff alleges conspired against him to
deprive him of his right to participate in the academic life
of his children and to falsely arrest and imprison him for
exercising that right. (ECF No. 1).
October of 2015, plaintiff contacted Wright Elementary School
(“Wright”) principal Carol Erbach and
vice-principal Pamela Norton-Lindemuth regarding
plaintiff's daughter who attended Wright. Id.
Plaintiff asserts that Erbach, Norton-Lindemuth, and Patricia
Foley, the mother of plaintiff's daughter, had been
depriving plaintiff of normal custody and rights of his
children. Id. Plaintiff asserts that Erbach and
Norton-Lindemuth “unlawfully and maliciously”
opposed the plaintiff's right to designate himself as his
daughter's emergency contact for the school. Id.
November 12, 2015, plaintiff asserts that he went to Wright
to take his daughter to lunch. Id. Plaintiff asserts
that when he identified himself to school officials, Does 1,
2, and 3, he was told to wait. Id. While he was
waiting plaintiff was approached by William Gaither who
informed plaintiff that he was not free to leave.
Id. Deanne Turner then approached and prevented
plaintiff from leaving or taking custody of his daughter.
Id. Gaither gave plaintiff a letter composed by
Erbach and Norton-Lindemuth informing him that he would be
arrested if he ever returned to the school. Id.
Bourne and Kurt Graham then entered the school to arrest and
remove plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff asserts that Bourne
grabbed plaintiff and began to shake him, causing plaintiff
personal injury. Id. Bourne, Graham and Doe 4
transported plaintiff to “Clark County's illegal
debtor's prison.” Id.
alleges that Bourne, Graham, Doe 4, Edward Ewert, and Steven
Wolfson fabricated a fake warrant to justify plaintiff's
arrest. Id. Plaintiff asserts that the warrant had a
fake signature of Judge Charles Hoskin via a rubber stamp
rather than a district court judge. Id.
November 16, 2015, after being held in Clark County Detention
Center (“CCDC”) for four days, plaintiff asserts
that defendants forced him to appear before “a sham
tribunal that can be best characterized as a kangaroo
court.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that Wolfson and
Ewert set up the “sham trial” so that plaintiff
would not have any representation. Id. Lok presided
over the hearing. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Lok
permitted plaintiff to make arguments, but said arguments
were not considered and sentenced plaintiff to ten days
November 13, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint naming Bourne,
Graham, Turner, Gaither, Wolfson, Ewert, Lok, Grierson,
Erbach, Norton-Lindemuth, LVMPD, Lombardo, Clark County, and
Patricia Foley as defendants. Id.
may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide “[a]
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2);
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual
allegations, it demands “more than labels and
conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).
Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step
approach district courts are to apply when considering
motions to dismiss. First, the court must accept as true all
well-pled factual allegations in the complaint; however,
legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of
truth. Id. at 678-79. Mere recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory
statements, do not suffice. Id. at 678.
the court must consider whether the factual allegations in
the complaint allege a plausible claim for relief.
Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the
plaintiff's complaint alleges facts that allow the court
to draw a reasonable ...