United States District Court, D. Nevada
R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
City of Reno ("City"), Joshua Sanford
("Sanford"), and Cade Leavitt ("Leavitt")
(collectively "defendants") move this court for
summary judgment. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff, James O'Doan
("O'Doan") filed a response, to which
defendants replied. ECF Nos. 42, 48. The court now grants
15, 2016, at approximately 7:00 p.m., O'Doan alleges he
suffered a grand mal seizure while taking a shower.
ECF No. 7 ¶ 10. O'Doan, who is epileptic, alleges
that after he suffers from a seizure, he enters a
"post-ictal" state, during which he is unable to
cooperate because he is not conscious. Id.
¶¶ 9, 14. On die date at issue, following the
seizure, O'Doan left his home on Gentry Way in Reno,
Nevada, and began wandering, fully nude, in this alleged
altered state. Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 15.
O'Doan's girlfriend, April O'Frea
("O'Frea"), called 911 to report
O'Doan's seizure and request help. Id.
¶¶ 11-12. O'Frea indicated that O'Doan had
been attacked by police in the past during seizures because
he doesn't listen and repeatedly informed dispatch of
O'Doan's medical condition. Id. ¶¶
trained for medical emergencies and REMSA were dispatched by
the 911 operator and arrived at the scene. ECF No. 39-4 at
4-6; ECF No. 42-2. After being unsuccessful in restraining
O'Doan, they began to pursue him on foot as he walked
northbound along Kietzke Lane in his naked state. ECF No.
42-4 at 28; ECF 42-2. On request of the firefighters and
REMSA, police assistance was expedited, and Reno Police
Officers Sanford and Leavitt were dispatched to the scene.
Id. at 23; ECF No. 39-4 at 6. When the officers
arrived, they directed O'Doan to stop and announced
themselves as police. ECF No. 42-4 at 30. O'Doan ignored
their instructions, and "ball[ed] up both his fists and
kind of [brought] his arms, his forearms, up, not at a full
90-degree angle, but he [brought] them up slightly."
Id. at 31. Leavitt thei attempted to use his TASER
on O'Doan, however, it malfunctioned. Id. at 32.
Sanford then performed a "reverse reap throw,"
taking O'Doan down to the ground. Id. at 33.
Sanford's written report of the incident provides that
"this caused O'Doan's head to receive
lacerations and swelling on it in a variety of places."
ECF No. 42-11 at 10. Sanford and Leavitt handcuffed
O'Doan's and placed him in Ripp leg restraints
because he was actively attempting to kick officers and REMSA
personnel. ECF No. 42-4 at 39. REMSA personnel were then able
to sedate O'Dcan and he was transported to Renown
Regional Medical Center ("Renown"). ECF No. 7
¶¶ 19-20. On the scene, Sanford advised his
supervisor, Sergeant Browitt, that "they are claiming
that he was suffering from a seizure." ECF No. 42-4 at
45. O'Doan admits that he has no memory of this incident.
ECF No. 42 at 3.
Daryl Di Rocco ("Di Rocco") treated O'Doan in
die emergency room at Renown and diagnosed him with having
suffered from a seizure. Id. ¶ 20; ECF No.
42-12 at 8. O'Doan alleges that Di Rocco spoke with
Sanford and Leavitt, and both were informed of the diagnosis.
ECF No. 7 ¶ 22. Discharge papers indicate Sanford and
O'Doan signed for the documents, however, Sanford does
not remember doing so. ECF No. 42-4 at 51-52. Sanford also
declared that "[n]either the emergency room doctor, nor
anyone else at Renown, informed us that Plaintiff supposedly
had a seizure or was an epileptic." ECF No. 39-7 at 4.
At approximately 9:41 p.m., O'Doan was discharged from
Renown into the custody of Sanford and Leavitt. ECF No. 7
¶23. Sanford and Leavitt then arrested O'Doan for
indecent exposure and resisting a police officer, and he was
transported to the Washoe County Jail and booked at 11:03
p.m.. Id. ¶¶ 24, 26, 28. The following
morning, at approximately 9:30 a.m., O'Doan was released
on bail Id. ¶ 26.
and Leavitt both wrote police reports following the incident;
though neither mention that O'Doan is epileptic, or that
he alleges he had a seizure and was in a post-ictal state at
the time of the incident. ECF No. 42-11 at 8-10. The charges
were later dismissed without prejudice. See ECF Nos.
8, 2018, O'Doan filed suit in this court alleging die
following causes of action: (1) Violation of the ADA, 42
U.S.C. § 12132, against the City of Reno; (2) Excessive
Force in violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments, under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, against Sanford; (3) Unlawful Seizure in
violation of the 4th Amendment, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
against Sanford and Leavitt; (4) Violation of 14di Amendment
guaranteed Due Process, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against
Sanford and Leavitt; (5) Assault and Battery against Sanford;
and (6) False Arrest and False Imprisonment against Sanford
and Leavitt. ECF Nos. 1, 7. The court's order on the
pending dispositive motion now follows.
for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule
judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, affidavits or declarations,
stipulations, admissions, and other materials in the record
show mat "there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In assessing a motion for
summary judgment, the evidence, together with all inferences
mat can reasonably be drawn therefrom, must be read in the
light most favorable to the party opposing me motion.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); County of Tuolumne v. Sonora
Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2001).
moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court
of the basis for its motion, along with evidence showing the
absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). On those
issues for which it bears the burden of proof, the moving
party must make a showing that is "sufficient for the
court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find
other than for the moving party." Calderone v.
United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir. 1986);
see also Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F.Supp.2d
1129, 1141 (CD. Cal. 2001).
successfully rebut a motion for summary judgment, the
nonmoving party must point to facts supported by the record
which demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Reese
v. Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736 (9th Cir.
2000). A "material fact" is a fact "that might
affect the outcome of the suit under die governing law."
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on die material
facts at issue, summary judgment is not appropriate. See
v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983). A dispute
regarding a material fact is considered genuine "if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party." Liberty
Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. The mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence in support of the party's position
is insufficient to establish a genuine dispute; there must be
evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for me party.
See Id. at 252.
O'Doan has failed to establish an issue of fact exists as
to whether the City of Reno violated Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C.
O'Doan alleges that the City of Reno failed to train,
supervise, and/or discipline Sanford and Leavitt in
recognizing symptoms of a disability under Title II of the,
ADA. ECF No. 7 ¶ 34. While mis Circuit has no set
standard for failure-to-train claims under the ADA, other
courts have analyzed mese claims under me § 1983
framework. See Green v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist.
of Oregon,909 F.Supp.2d 1211, 1220 (D. Or. 2012). Under
§ 1983, the City of Reno is liable "only if its
policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation
complained of." Mateyko v. Felix,924 F.2d 824,
826 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Monell v. Dep't of Social
Servs.,436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978)). "The inadequacy
of police training may serve as the basis for § 1983