Holmes v. Reusch
2:24-cv-01138
D. Nev.Jul 18, 2024Background
- Plaintiff David Holmes alleges that on January 29, 2020, North Las Vegas police officers Reusch and Cooley used excessive force against him outside Dotty’s Casino.
- Holmes claims that while complying with police orders, Officer Reusch struck him in the face with a baton and Officer Cooley kicked and stomped on him, resulting in injuries.
- Holmes further asserts Dotty’s Casino staff were aware of his injuries and failed to call an ambulance while he was bleeding on their property.
- Holmes filed suit pro se, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis due to inability to pay filing fees.
- The District Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, reviewing the legal sufficiency of Holmes' claims.
- The Court assessed the validity of claims under several statutes and constitutional amendments and determined which, if any, could proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private right of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 241, 242 | Holmes alleged violations of criminal statutes for actions by officers and casino | No response required; claim is not viable as a matter of law | Dismissed with prejudice—no private right of action |
| Eighth Amendment § 1983 claim (excessive force) | Holmes asserted excessive force under the Eighth Amendment | No response required; Eighth Amendment applies to prisoners | Dismissed with prejudice—not applicable as Holmes was not incarcerated |
| Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim (excessive force) | Holmes claimed Reusch and Cooley used unreasonable force during an arrest | Not yet addressed; case to proceed against these officers | Survives screening—claim may proceed against Officers Reusch and Cooley |
| Negligence by Dotty’s Casino | Holmes claimed Dotty’s Casino negligently failed to summon medical aid | Not yet addressed; plaintiff’s allegations insufficient as currently pled | Plaintiff given leave to amend with additional facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must allege more than labels and conclusions)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (standard for excessive force under Fourth Amendment)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (standard for excessive force under Eighth Amendment)
- Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cty. of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (Fourth Amendment applies to the states)
- Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (Rule 12(b)(6) standard applies in screening)