Greenstone v. LVMPD (Police Department)
2:23-cv-00290
| D. Nev. | Jan 31, 2024Background
- The case arises from a 2021 officer-involved shooting in Las Vegas that left Seth Greenstone, a mentally ill, suicidal individual, permanently incapacitated.
- Plaintiff Maureen Greenstone (Seth’s mother and guardian) sued Officer Contreras and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), alleging excessive force and related claims.
- Contreras responded to Seth’s 911 call despite not being dispatched, approached with lethal force, and shot Seth within six seconds of arrival, allegedly without waiting for less-lethal backup options.
- After an internal investigation, Contreras was terminated from LVMPD for his actions.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims under federal and Nevada law, including Monell liability, ADA violations, excessive force, battery, and negligence.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the Court resolved these motions, granting leave to amend on certain claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive Force (Fourth Amendment) | Contreras used unreasonable, lethal force against a non-threatening, mentally ill individual not suspected of a crime. | Force was objectively reasonable; Seth posed an immediate threat with his knife. | Plaintiffs plausibly allege excessive force; motion to dismiss denied. |
| Loss of Familial Association (Fourteenth Amendment & Nevada Const.) | Maureen has standing; conduct ‘shocks the conscience’ due to lack of legitimate law enforcement motive. | No standing for adult child; no ‘purpose to harm’ as conduct was for legitimate law enforcement purpose. | Dismissed with leave to amend; no plausible ‘purpose to harm’ pled. |
| Monell (LVMPD Policy/Custom) | LVMPD failed to train on de-escalation, has a custom of excessive force against mentally ill. | No sufficient facts showing policy/custom or that failure to train caused violation. | Failure to train claim may proceed; custom/policy claim dismissed with leave to amend. |
| ADA Claim | LVMPD denied reasonable accommodations for Seth’s disability during police response. | No deliberate indifference; allegations sound in negligence, not intent. | Dismissed with leave to amend; deliberate indifference not adequately pled. |
| Battery & Negligence (State Law) | Contreras’s actions were unreasonable, intentional, and caused harm. | Use of force was privileged and reasonable. | Claims may proceed; discretionary immunity not warranted due to plausible constitutional violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (sets standard for reasonableness in excessive force under Fourth Amendment)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (imposes municipal liability only for policies or customs causing constitutional violations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: must allege plausible factual claims, not mere conclusions)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability for training failures requires deliberate indifference)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (deliberate indifference standard for failure-to-train municipal liability)
- Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (substantive due process requires conduct that shocks the conscience)