1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 Lorraine Alvarado, 7 Case No. 2:25-cv-00007-RFB-NJK Plaintiff(s), 8 Order v. 9 [Docket No. 16] Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 10 et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 13 Docket No. 16. 14 The primary purpose of the proposed amendment is Plaintiff’s attempt to cure the 15 deficiencies with her Monell claim against Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. See id. at 16 2. The undersigned has already issued a report and recommendation that this particular claim be 17 dismissed without further leave to amend. Docket No. 11.1 If Plaintiff seeks relief as to that report 18 and recommendation, she is instructed to file an objection. See id. at 5-6. The motion for leave to 19 amend as to this Monell claim will be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff filing an objection to 20 the pending report and recommendation. 21 The proposed amendment also seeks to add factual allegations and causes of action against 22 Defendants Williams, Barr, and Garcia. The Court already issued a screening order permitting 23 1 Even were the motion to amend properly filed as to this issue, the proposed amendment 24 does not appear to cure the deficiencies as to the Monell claim. Docket No. 16-3 at 9-10. The proposed second amended complaint uses the words “policy and custom,” as well as indicating 25 that the department is responsible for training its officers, but the factual allegations presented are that the individual defendants engaged in wrongful conduct. See id. At bottom, the proposed 26 second amended complaint appears to rest on a respondeat superior theory that “L.V.M.P.D. is responsible and accountable, as well as liable for [its] police officers[’] conduct, misconduct, 27 negligence, and duty-performance.” Id. at 9. Local governments, such as municipalities, cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of City 28 of N.Y.,

(1978) 1} Plaintiffs excessive force claim to proceed against Defendants Williams, Barr, and Garcia, Docket 2|)| No. 5, and service is currently being attempted as to Defendants Williams, Barr, and Garcia based 3] on that screening order. Given that procedural posture, considering any new amendments as to 4] the individual defendants is better addressed after they have appeared on the excessive force 5| allegations that were previously screened. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is DENIED without prejudice. If Plaintiff seeks relief as to Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, she 8|| must file an objection to the pending report and recommendation. The Court hereby REOPENS 9] and EXTENDS that objection deadline to November 18, 2025. If Plaintiff seeks to add factual 10] allegations or causes of action against Defendants Williams, Barr, and Garcia, she may seek that 11] relief after they have appeared in the case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: November 4, 2025 14 0 A . — Nancy J. K opps 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28