United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is  Defendants Joshua Armendariz and Ann
Horak’s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons
stated below, the Court denies the motion in part.
Leah Ann Aldridge filed a complaint against Defendants Nye
County, Nye County Sheriff Sharon Wehrly, Deputy Joshua
Armendariz, Deputy Ann Horak, and Lieutenant David
Boruchowitz on June 4, 2018. The complaint brought five
causes of action: a claim against all Defendants for
violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; battery against
Armendariz; intentional infliction of emotional distress
against all Defendants; civil conspiracy against all
Defendants; and negligence and respondeat superior against
Wehrly and Nye County.
Armendariz, Horak, Nye County, and Wehrly filed the instant
motion on January 23, 2019 (ECF No. 16). Defendant
Boruchowitz joined the motion on January 25, 2019 (ECF No.
22) and filed a separation Motion for Summary Judgment on
January 23, 2019 (ECF No. 20).
September 5, 2019 a hearing was held on both Motions for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16, 20). The Court granted
Boruchowitz’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20).
ECF No. 32. The Court also granted summary judgment in favor
of Defendants Nye County and Sharon Wehrly on the instant
motion, and granted in part in favor of Defendants Armendariz
and Horak as to Plaintiff’s Fourth and Eighth Amendment
claims under Count I. Id.
Court now considers the remaining claims under the instant
motion as alleged against Defendants Armendariz and Horak.
Plaintiff was arrested during a traffic stop and detained at
Nye County Detention Center (“NCDC”) on April 17,
2017. Defendant Armendariz booked plaintiff. Defendant Horak
was also present when Plaintiff arrived at NCDC.
was initially placed into a holding cell. Later, Armendariz
took Plaintiff out of the holding cell and took her booking
photograph. After taking Plaintiff’s photograph,
Armendariz directed Plaintiff to sit and began to ask her
questions. Plaintiff requested to have a lawyer present while
she answered questions pursuant to the booking process.
Armendariz put Plaintiff back in her cell. Later, Plaintiff
was taken out of the cell for fingerprinting and further
processing. Plaintiff asked that pictures be taken of her
alleged injuries and Horak complied. Plaintiff was later
bailed out of the facility.
surveillance equipment at NCDC has audio as well as video
capabilities. Plaintiff requested surveillance footage from
Lieutenant Boruchowitz of NCDC during her detention there,
who provided it to her after some time.
parties have different characterizations of the circumstances
and the force deployed by Defendant Armendariz when he placed
Plaintiff back in her cell.
to Defendant Armendariz, he took Plaintiff out of her cell
and directed her to sit, then asked her intake questions to
complete the booking process. Armendariz Decl. Ex. C, at 1,
ECF No. 17. Defendants state Plaintiff became agitated during
this process and that she would not answer questions without
an attorney. Id. Defendants further allege that
Armendariz informed Plaintiff she did not have a right to an
attorney during the booking process and that she would return
to the holding cell if she did not cooperate. Id. at
1-2. Defendants also assert Plaintiff was told to voluntarily
return to the cell and ignored instructions, whereupon
Armendariz took Plaintiff’s arms by the armpit, walked
her to the cell, and placed her on the floor. Id. at
2. Defendant Armendariz states he gave Plaintiff multiple
opportunities to return to her cell voluntarily before he
placed her in the cell and that she “dropped her weight
in an attempt to go limp” when he stood her up.
Id. at 2.
version of events differs. Plaintiff states that when asked
questions by Defendant Armendariz, she exercised her
“Fifth Amendment” rights and asked for an
attorney. Aldridge Dep. 20:1, 18:15 Ex. A-1, ECF No. 17.
Plaintiff states Defendant Armendariz was agitated,
“went into a tirade, ” walked around the desk,
forcibly grabbed Plaintiff from behind, dragged her, then
threw her to the floor of the holding cell. Id. at
20:9, 29:19. Plaintiff states that she was never told to get
up from her seat and return to her cell voluntarily.
Id. at 21:6. Plaintiff states she sustained injuries
to her head, neck, elbow, and left side hip. Id. at
70:22. Plaintiff also states that Defendant Armendariz cursed
at her. Id. at 17:22.
judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). When considering the propriety of summary
judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th
Cir. 2014). If the movant has carried its burden, the
non-moving party “must do more than simply show that
there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . .
. . Where the record taken as a whole could not ...