1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 KHALID HENDERSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-00633-RFB-EJY

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al. 11 Defendants. 12

13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Before the Court are several motions: Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File; Magistrate 15 Judge Youchach’s Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) regarding Plaintiff’s Motion; and 16 Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report. ECF Nos. 44, 52, 53. As discussed below, the Report is adopted 17 in part and denied in part; and the Motion for Leave to File and Appeal of the Report are denied. 18

19 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff, Khalid Henderson, commenced this action by filing a civil complaint on April 16, 2021. 21 ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint on September 27, 2021. ECF No. 6. On 22 March 9, 2022, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was screened by the Court. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff 23 was granted an opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint on October 26, 2022. Plaintiff 24 filed his Second Amended Complaint on January 4, 2023. ECF No. 29. This Complaint was then 25 screened on February 9, 2023. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff filed a Motion seeking to file a Third 26 Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on April 20, 2023. ECF No. 44. Defendants filed a Response 27 opposing the motion on April 23, 2023. ECF No. 45. Magistrate Judge Youchach submitted a 28 1 Report on June 29, 2023. ECF No. 52. Plaintiff filed an Appeal of the Report on July 12, 2023. 2 ECF No. 53. 3 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD 5 A district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 6 recommendations made by the magistrate."

(b)(1). A party may file specific written 7 objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge.

(b)(1); 8 Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to 9 "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 10 recommendations to which objection is made."

(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3- 11 2(b). 12 IV. DISCUSSION 13 Plaintiff bases his proposed TAC on unsafe conditions, deliberate indifference, and equal 14 protection claims. Judge Youchach’s Report advises that Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied, and 15 the Plaintiff should be instructed that efforts to replead the claims are foreclosed. 16 a. Unsafe Conditions 17 Plaintiff alleges that on December 27, 2019, he slipped and fell on the bathroom floor after 18 the cleaning crew mopped the area. The Report correctly notes that this Court’s Screening Order 19 previously dismissed this claim with prejudice. Plaintiff thus did not have leave to replead this 20 claim. Accordingly, no further analysis of this claim is provided. The Court therefore adopts this 21 portion of the Report and will not permit further attempts to replead this claim. 22 b. Eight Amendment Violation 23 Plaintiff attempts to assert an Eighth Amendment claim maintaining that correctional 24 center staff inflicted cruel and unusual punishment and showed deliberate indifference when they 25 failed to secure the wet bathroom floor or provide warnings regarding the slippery surface. 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint is unclear on which grounds it is bringing this Eighth Amendment 27 claim. The Report interprets this portion of the TAC as an attempt to state a claim for inadequate 28 medical care. When similar claims were made in previous iterations of this Complaint, this Court 1 has also interpreted this as an inadequate medical care claim, and it takes this perspective in this 2 analysis as well. 3 The Eighth Amendment mandates that prison officials provide humane conditions of 4 confinement, provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and take reasonable 5 measures to guarantee the safety of those incarcerated. Farmer v. Brennan,

. A 6 prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when he acts with deliberate indifference to the 7 serious medical needs of an inmate.

. 8 In order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation, “a plaintiff must satisfy both an 9 objective standard—that the deprivation was serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual 10 punishment—and a subjective standard—deliberate indifference.” Balla v. Idaho,

, 11 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Snow v. McDaniel,

(9th Cir. 2012), overruled 12 on other grounds by Peralta v. Dillard,

(9th Cir. 2014)). To establish the first prong, 13 “the plaintiff must show a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner's 14 condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 15 pain.” Jett v. Penner,

(9th Cir. 2006) To satisfy the deliberate indifference 16 prong, a plaintiff must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or 17 possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.”

“Indifference may appear 18 when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be 19 shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.”

20 Plaintiff’s claim fails to allege facts sufficient to allow this claim to proceed. The TAC 21 only alleges that by failing to secure the wet floor and put up cautionary signs regarding the 22 bathroom surface, the prison staff violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. These allegations 23 do not speak to the objective or subjective requirements necessary to sufficiently plead the claim. 24 This claim will thus not be permitted to proceed. 25 c. Equal Protection 26 Plaintiff alleges that he suffered mental health issues after his head injury. He asserts that 27 that the medical staff knew that he required mental health services and, yet, he did not receive this 28 treatment. 1 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is essentially a direction that 2 all similarly situated persons be treated equally under the law. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne 3 Living Ctr.,

(1985). To state an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must allege 4 facts demonstrating that defendants acted with the intent and purpose to discriminate against him 5 based upon membership in a protected class, or that defendants purposefully treated him 6 differently than similarly situated individuals without any rational basis for the disparate treatment. 7 Lee v. City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by 8 Galbraith v. Cnty. of Santa Clara,

, 1125–26 (9th Cir. 2002); see Vill. of 9 Willowbrook v. Olech,

(2000). 10 The Report finds that the Plaintiff pleads no facts demonstrating any Defendant acted in a 11 discriminatory manner toward him based on membership in a protected class. Likewise, this Court 12 finds no facts alleging that Plaintiff was discriminated against based on protected class 13 membership or that Plaintiff was treated differently than similarly situated individuals. 14 The Court adopts this finding of the Report and will not permit further attempts to plead 15 this claim. 16 V. CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons discussed above, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that [52] the Report 18 is ADOPTED. 19 IT IS FUTHER ORDERD that the [44] Motion for Leave to File and [53] Objection to 20 the Report are DENIED. 21 22 DATED: March 29, 2024

23

24 __________________________________ 25 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28