Smith v. Perkins
2:23-cv-01931-APG-NJK
D. Nev.Jun 24, 2024Background
- Plaintiff (Smith) filed a complaint alleging improprieties concerning inherited property during state court probate proceedings.
- The Court previously dismissed the initial complaint for failing to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the defendants were not alleged to be state actors.
- Plaintiff amended the complaint, adding more private defendants (including a law firm, a psychic, and a retired person), and cited additional federal statutes.
- The amended complaint again failed to allege that any defendant acted under color of state law, a requirement for § 1983 claims.
- Plaintiff referenced emotional distress and alleged violations under sections 1985, 1986, and 1997 but did not provide factual bases meeting these statutes' standards.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without further leave to amend, suggesting state court as the appropriate forum for any state law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1983 claim: state action requirement | Defendants deprived Smith of property through conspiracy | Not state actors; no state action alleged | Dismissed; no claim under § 1983 without state action |
| Federal claim under § 1985/§ 1986 | Cited statutes as jurisdictional basis for conspiracy and omission | No class-based or discriminatory animus pled | Dismissed; complaint fails to meet § 1985/§ 1986 elements |
| Emotional distress (federal claim) | Claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation for distress | No basis for federal jurisdiction | Dismissed; only state law claim, no diversity alleged |
| Amendment futility | Sought leave to amend after prior dismissal | Repeated deficiencies remain | Denied; further amendment would not cure deficiencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must cross threshold from conceivable to plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations and recitation of elements do not suffice for pleading)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (court need not accept legal conclusions as true in pleading)
- City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro Boat Works, 635 F.3d 440 (court discretion to deny leave to amend is broad after prior amendments)
- Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 40 F.3d 1041 (when no federal claims remain, court should decline jurisdiction over state law claims)