United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is defendants Jennifer Nash and Joseph
Faliszek's (collectively “defendants”) motion
to dismiss. (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff Joshua Rexroad filed a
response (ECF No. 29), to which defendants replied (ECF No.
before the court is plaintiffs motion to extend. (ECF No.
26). Defendants did not file a response and the time to do so
a prisoner civil rights case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1983. See (ECF Nos. 8, 9). Plaintiff, who is a
prisoner in the custody of the Ely State Prison
(“Ely”), proceeds pro se and in
forma pauperis. Id.
alleges that on June 8, 2015, several members of the
correctional emergency response team placed plaintiff in
administrative segregation without access to his prayer rug
and a copy of the Quran. (ECF No. 9). When plaintiff inquired
into the reason for the administrative segregation, prison
officials informed plaintiff that there was a pending
investigation and that they did not know what the
investigation was about. Id. However, plaintiff did
receive a notice showing that he would have an administrative
hearing. (ECF No. 29).
months and twelve days later, on January 20, 2016, Ely
released plaintiff from administrative segregation. (ECF No.
9). Plaintiff alleges that he never received an
administrative hearing. Id.
22, 2018, plaintiff initiated this action. (ECF No. 9). The
court screened the complaint and allowed plaintiff to proceed
on counts I, IV, and V. (ECF No. 10). In count IV, plaintiff
alleges that defendants violated the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment by placing plaintiff in
administrative segregation and denying him a hearing or
periodic review. (ECF No. 9).
defendants move to dismiss count IV. (ECF No. 23).
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. 662, 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
plaintiffs complaint alleges facts that allow the court to
draw a reasonable ...