by Douglas Ankney

On December 24, 2025, the Nevada Court of Appeals reversed the state district court’s dismissal of pretrial detainee David North’s claim that CoreCivic, the private prison operator, violated his due process rights under the Nevada Constitution by failing to protect him from violence at the hands of other detainees at the Nevada Southern Detention Center (NSDC).

North initially filed his complaint in Nye County District Court of Nevada’s Fifth Judicial District. Among other claims, he alleged that he suffered injuries after being attacked by other detainees at the NSDC and “CoreCivic failed to prevent the attack and had policies that permitted the attack to occur.” North argued he was entitled to monetary damages pursuant to federal law, state torts law, and the Nevada Constitution.

CoreCivic removed the matter to federal court. The federal district court screened North’s complaint, dismissed his 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claims, and remanded the case back to state court for resolution of his state law claims. The state district court dismissed North’s failure-­to-­protect claim, finding that North had failed to state a claim; that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations; and the claim was barred by claim preclusion subsequent to the federal district court’s dismissal. North appealed.

The Court observed “[u]nder Nevada’s due process clause, ‘[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’” The Court also cited Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2016), writing that “‘Jailers have a duty to protect pretrial detainees from violence at the hands of other inmates,’ and a pretrial detainee may raise a failure to protect claim as a violation of a detainee’s right to due process.” According tothe Court,as outlined in Castro, the elements of the failure-­to-­protect claim when made by a pretrial detainee are:

“(1) The defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (2) Those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (3) The defendant did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable officer in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and (4) By not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries.”

The Court explained that North “alleged that CoreCivic systematically permitted situations in which North and other detainees engaged in acts of violence and thus created unsafe conditions. North also alleged that as a result of CoreCivc’s actions, he received injuries in an attack from fellow detainees.” The Court concluded that the facts described by North were “sufficient to satisfy Nevada’s notice pleading standard.” Therefore, the district court erroneously dismissed North’s complaint for failure to state a claim.

Additionally, the district court dismissed North’s claim on the ground that Nevada’s two-­year statute of limitations on personal injury claims had expired. The accrual date was the date of the attack—December 21, 2018—but North did not file his complaint until June 24, 2021. However, claims brought pursuant to the Nevada Constitution have a four-­year statute of limitations. North’s complaint was well-­within the applicable four years and the state district court’s dismissal on this ground was error.

Finally, the state district court dismissed North’s complaint based on the doctrine of claim preclusion. The federal district court dismissed North’s federal law claims without prejudice and noted that, if he wanted to bring state law claims against CoreCivic, he would need to file a new law suit in state court.

The Court in the instant appeal opined “[b]ased on a plain reading of the federal court’s screening order, we conclude it was not meant to have a preclusive effect. We therefore conclude that the doctrine of claim preclusion did not apply to bar North’s failure-­to-­protect claim based on the screening order, and thus, the district court erred by dismissing that claim based on claim preclusion.”

Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court’s order as to the failure-­to-­protect claim and remanded for proceedings consistent with the Court’s order. See: North v. CoreCivic, Inc., 2024 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 662 (Nev. App.) (unpublished).