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.

Timmons v. Clark County Detention Center

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 20, 2019

TOLAVIUS TIMMONS, Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the court is defendant Williamson's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff Tolavius Timmons filed a response (ECF No. 19), to which Williamson replied (ECF No. 30).

         Also before the court is Williamson's motion to strike. (ECF No. 32). Timmons filed a response. (ECF No. 36). Williamson did not file a reply and the time to do so has passed.

         Also before the court is defendant NaphCare, Inc.'s (“NaphCare”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 42). Timmons did not file a response and the time to do so has passed. . . . . . . . . .

         I. Facts

         This is a § 1983 civil rights action arising from Timmons' pre-trial detention at the Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”). (ECF No. 9). Timmons alleges the following facts in his second amended complaint:

         In February 2016, Timmons had a doctor visit with Williamson to remove staples from a wound on his leg. Id. Prior to treating Timmons, Williamson placed him on used shower chairs and unclean general population seats. Id. These unclean conditions caused Timmons to get a yeast infection in his leg, preventing his wound from healing properly. Id. Williamson also inadvertently pushed one of the staples further into Timmons' leg. Id.

         Timmons complained about pain in his leg, but defendant nurse Pat did not allow him to see a doctor. Id. Timmons filed a grievance, but CCDC's staff did not take any corrective actions. Id. Eventually, the medical staff performed an x-ray and found a foreign object lodged in Timmons' leg. Id. Nevertheless, CCDC's staff still did not remove the staple. Id.

         In March 2016, Timmons requested attention for multiple medical issues and told Williamson about his need to be placed on the medical tier. Id. Timmons was given medications but his leg issue was not addressed and he was not placed on the medical tier. Id. Thereafter, Timmons filed another grievance for not being placed on medical tier, being exposed to unsanitary surfaces, and having extreme pain in his leg. Id. CCDC did not take any corrective actions. Id.

         Timmons also notified NaphCare that he had a toothache and cavity. Id. In September 2016, a dentist examined Timmons and told him that he had a serious condition that required antibiotics. Id. Timmons filed a grievance, claiming that his dental care was improperly delayed for six months. Id. Some time prior to January 2017, Timmons met with a second dentist. Id. After Timmons refused to pay for any treatment, the dentist declined to provide medical services and removed Timmons from his office. Id. Timmons filed another grievance in which he complained about the dentist's medical services. Id. CCDC's staff did not take any corrective actions. Id.

         Timmons initiated this action on September 21, 2016. (ECF No. 1). On July 26, 2017, Timmons filed a second amended complaint, asserting four counts of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 9). On November 7, 2018, Timmons filed a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 31).

         Now, Williamson moves to (1) strike the third amended complaint because Timmons' did not obtain the court's leave to amend the complaint and (2) dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF Nos. 19, 32). NaphCare also filed a Rule 12 motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 42).

         II. Legal Standard

         The court may dismiss a plaintiff's 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). Although rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it does require more than labels and conclusions. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Furthermore, a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 ...


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.