The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's decision dismissing a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by a former Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officer who claimed his constitutional rights were violated during an internal investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution.
Solomon Coleman filed the lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and seven individual defendants: Joseph Lepore, Cheryl Hooten, Brian Santarossa, Donald Shane, R. Tennant, Vicente Ramirez, and Lisa Luzaich. The case stems from an internal investigation that resulted in Coleman's arrest and prosecution on sex-related criminal charges.
According to court documents, Coleman was acquitted on all but one charge in his criminal trial. The Nevada Supreme Court subsequently reversed his conviction on the remaining offense, effectively clearing him of all criminal charges. Following these developments, Coleman brought the federal civil rights action alleging that the officers and deputy district attorney involved in his investigation and prosecution violated his constitutional rights.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, presiding under Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey, initially denied Coleman's motion for summary judgment. However, the district court dismissed claims against defendants Hooten and Ramirez under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which governs the time limits for serving defendants with legal process. The court then granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants on all other claims, effectively ending Coleman's lawsuit at the trial court level.
Coleman, representing himself pro se without an attorney, timely filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Paez, Bennett, and Sung reviewed the case and unanimously concluded it was suitable for decision without oral argument, as permitted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2).
The Ninth Circuit applied de novo review to the district court's summary judgment decision, citing the precedent established in Burch v. City of Chubbuck, 146 F.4th 822. Under de novo review, the appeals court examines the legal issues fresh, without deferring to the lower court's analysis.
The appeals court issued its decision as a memorandum opinion, which means it is not designated for publication and does not serve as binding precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This designation typically indicates that the panel found the legal issues sufficiently straightforward or well-established that a published opinion was unnecessary.
Section 1983 lawsuits are a common mechanism for individuals to seek redress when they believe government officials have violated their constitutional rights under color of state law. These cases often involve claims of excessive force, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, or other violations of civil liberties by law enforcement officers or other government employees.
For Coleman's lawsuit to succeed, he would have needed to demonstrate that the defendants acted under color of state law and violated his clearly established constitutional rights. Common defenses in such cases include qualified immunity, which protects government officials from liability unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known about.
The case highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking to hold law enforcement accountable through federal civil rights litigation. Even when criminal charges are dismissed or overturned, as in Coleman's case, proving constitutional violations in civil court requires meeting different legal standards and overcoming various procedural hurdles.
Coleman's decision to represent himself pro se, while legally permissible, likely presented additional challenges in navigating the complex procedural requirements and legal standards governing Section 1983 litigation. Pro se litigants often face difficulties in properly pleading their claims, conducting discovery, and presenting legal arguments that meet federal court standards.
The dismissal of claims against Hooten and Ramirez under Rule 4(m) demonstrates the importance of properly serving all defendants within the required time limits. This procedural requirement can be particularly challenging for pro se litigants who may be unfamiliar with the technical requirements of federal civil procedure.
The Ninth Circuit's affirmance of the summary judgment suggests that Coleman was unable to present sufficient evidence to create genuine disputes of material fact regarding his constitutional claims. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine disputes about material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
This case represents another example of the difficulties plaintiffs face in Section 1983 litigation against law enforcement agencies and officers. While these lawsuits serve an important function in providing accountability for constitutional violations, they require plaintiffs to navigate complex legal standards and procedural requirements that can be challenging even for experienced attorneys.
The decision was filed on January 15, 2026, and formally submitted to the court on the same date, indicating the panel's expedited handling of the appeal.