Johnson v. Sanchez
2:24-cv-02362
| D. Nev. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Ricky Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the District of Nevada.
- Johnson alleges that three police officers unlawfully detained and excessively force was used on him, resulting in serious knee injuries and psychological harm.
- He claims violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment rights, along with claims for false imprisonment, excessive force, and federal kidnapping.
- Johnson also includes allegations against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) for failing to respond to the officers’ conduct and denying video evidence.
- The court granted the IFP application but dismissed the complaint without prejudice due to insufficient factual allegations and legal deficiencies, allowing Johnson to amend.
- Johnson was given a deadline to file an amended complaint remedying the deficiencies; his criminal statute-based claims were specifically disallowed, and instructions for amending were provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ability to proceed in forma pauperis | Johnson cannot afford filing fees | N/A | Granted; plaintiff may proceed IFP |
| Sufficiency of §1983 & Fourth Amendment claims | Officers conspired to detain and search him | Did not respond (screening order) | Dismissed; insufficient facts to state a claim |
| Excessive force | Officers "took him down," causing injuries | Did not respond (screening order) | Dismissed; lacks specific facts per officer |
| Monell municipal liability (LVMPD) | LVMPD failed to act or provide evidence | Did not respond (screening order) | Dismissed; no allegations of LVMPD policy/custom |
| Federal kidnapping statute | Officers violated federal kidnapping statute | Did not respond (screening order) | Dismissed; no private right of action under §1201 |
Key Cases Cited
- Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (standards for pleading under Rule 8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility requirement for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standards—plausibility)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standard)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (elements of §1983 claims)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (official vs. personal capacity §1983 claims)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (limitations and standards for investigative stops)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objectively reasonable standard for excessive force)
- Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under §1983)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (Fourth Amendment governs false arrest claims)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause standard)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (bar on §1983 claims relating to un-invalidated convictions)