Rowe v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
2:21-cv-00724
D. Nev.Feb 4, 2022Background
- Rowe underwent surgery for a fractured femur and later believed his surgeon and physical-therapy provider intentionally delayed post‑op therapy as part of an insurance‑fraud scheme.
- He gathered evidence and went to a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) station seeking to file a report under NRS § 200.495; officers declined to take a written report, explaining the statute concerns medical malpractice/administrative matters.
- Rowe alleges Metro has systematically deprived him of the ability to file police reports and sued Metro and three officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his First Amendment right to petition; defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- Rowe also moved for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, arguing the defendants’ motion to dismiss was frivolous; defendants argued the sanctions motion violated the 21‑day safe‑harbor and lacked merit.
- The court dismissed Rowe’s amended complaint with prejudice (no leave to amend), holding no constitutional violation occurred, and denied Rowe’s sanctions motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refusing to take a written police report/investigate violated Rowe's First Amendment right to petition | Rowe: had a constitutional right to file a police report and compel investigation under NRS § 200.495 | Defs: grievance not within First Amendment protection as public‑concern matter; police have no duty to investigate or take civil/administrative complaints | Court: Petition Clause protects addressing government but does not impose an affirmative duty to investigate; Rowe orally petitioned Metro; no constitutional violation — claim dismissed |
| Whether the right to petition required a written report | Rowe: implied need to file written report | Defs: form irrelevant; no protected right to compel written filing or investigation | Court: Petition need not be written; oral complaints qualify, so denial of written report did not deny petition rights |
| Whether defendants' counsel should be sanctioned under Rule 11 for a frivolous motion to dismiss | Rowe: defendants’ motion was frivolous and contrary to law; sanctions warranted | Defs: Rowe failed to comply with Rule 11 safe‑harbor; motion to dismiss is proper procedural device and not sanctionable | Court: Denied sanctions — Rowe violated the 21‑day safe‑harbor and failed to show sanctionable conduct |
| Whether leave to amend should be permitted after dismissal | Rowe: should be allowed to amend | Defs: amendment would be futile | Court: Amendment would be futile because no viable petition‑right claim and alternative avenues existed; dismissal without leave to amend granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard and plausibility framework)
- Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) (public‑concern test limited to public‑employment retaliation context)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public‑employee speech framework)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (public‑employee free‑speech balancing)
- California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) (right to petition extends to all government departments)
- Pearson v. Welborn, 471 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2006) (First Amendment petitioning need not be written)
- Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1994) (police have no affirmative constitutional duty to investigate or protect)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (no affirmative duty to protect individuals by government)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors governing leave to amend pleadings)
- Gerber v. Herskovitz, 14 F.4th 500 (6th Cir. 2021) (petition protects the public’s right to address the government)