Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SERGIO MORALES, as Special Administrator and as the father and Heir of the Estate of SERGIO HUGO MORALES-PAREDES, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; CHIEF FORTI; NORHR, Capt.; JOSEPH CHRONISTER, Assistant Chief; POWELL, Lt.; ROGERS, Sgt.; J. CAMPBELL, Sgt.; MCCAFFERTY, Classification Counselor; PRESCILLA TENUTA, P#1376, Classification Technician; GIARMO, Sgt.; WOOLMAN, Lt.; MOTE, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM*
Sergio Hugo Morales-Paredes appeals from the judgment in favor of all defendants in this action arising out of the murder of his son, Sergio, while he was in the pretrial custody of the North Las Vegas Detention Center.
We affirm the judgment in favor of the City of North Las Vegas. There is no evidence that there was any policy or practice of placing pretrial detainees in dangerous situations. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 456 U.S. 658, 690–97 (1978). A single instance is not sufficient. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823 (1985); see also Gant v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir. 2014).
When the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants, it did not have the benefit of our recent en banc decision in Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). That decision altered the analytical framework applicable to pretrial detainees' claims. We therefore vacate the judgment in favor of the individual defendants and remand for reconsideration in light of Castro.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part and REMANDED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-15746
Decided: December 14, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)