Smith v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department, 2:15-cv-01011

On May 18, 2010, plaintiff Phillip E. Smith was in a head-on collision and allegedly suffered head, chest, and back injuries.
Police officers Seymore and Warburton arrived; Smith alleges he asked repeatedly for medical attention while in custody and was ignored, threatened, or told to “shut up.”
Smith filed a § 1983 complaint alleging cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment) on December 4, 2015—more than five years after the incident.
The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as time-barred; Warburton joined Seymore’s motion.
Smith asked the court to equitably toll the two-year Nevada residual statute of limitations, arguing inadequate law-library access for four years and fear of retaliation by the officers.
The court found Smith knew of his injury and claim in May 2010, that his alleged excuses did not establish tolling, and that defendants were prejudiced by the delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith's § 1983 claim is time-barred	Smith argued equitable tolling should extend the two-year limitations period due to limited law-library access and fear of retaliation	Defendants argued the claim accrued in May 2010, and Smith filed well after the two-year period elapsed; no tolling applicable	Court held claim is time-barred; dismissed without prejudice
Whether Smith knew or should have known of his claim in 2010	Smith claimed lack of resources and fear prevented filing within limitations	Defendants asserted Smith knew of his injury/claim when he was taken into custody and did not diligently pursue it	Court held Smith knew relevant facts in 2010 and did not show excusable delay
Whether inadequate law-library access warrants equitable tolling	Smith asserted inability to access legal resources until 2014 impeded filing	Defendants argued Smith did not allege denial of essential legal services or attempts to obtain forms/assistance	Court found allegations insufficient under Bounds/Lewis standards and denied tolling
Whether speculative allegations of monitoring/retaliation support tolling	Smith alleged officers spied on him and monitored mail/phone to deter filing	Defendants characterized these assertions as speculative and unsupported	Court held these assertions speculative under Twombly/Iqbal and insufficient to toll statute

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (two-step plausibility framework for motions to dismiss)
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (Ninth Circuit guidance on Iqbal pleading standards)
Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (state law governs § 1983 statute of limitations duration)
U.S. v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (accrual when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
Lukovsky v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044 (equitable tolling for excusable delay)
Cabarea v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374 (§ 1983 accrual principles)
Copeland v. Desert Inn Hotel, 673 P.2d 490 (Nevada factors for equitable tolling)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (access-to-courts standards regarding law libraries)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (clarifying Bounds; essential-legal-services requirement)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (courts accept pro se prisoner allegations as true for pleading)