United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
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. . . . . . . . . .
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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).
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 ...