Practice Area - Civil Rights

The constitutional rights guaranteed to individuals by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments are not self-executing. They become meaningful only when an advocate is prepared to enforce them — in suppression hearings, at trial, and when the violation is so serious that the appropriate remedy is a federal civil lawsuit seeking accountability and compensation. Lauren Gorman's civil rights practice represents individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated by government actors, bringing the same analytical depth and litigation sophistication she applies to her criminal defense work to the distinct but overlapping domain of federal civil rights enforcement.

Cases Lauren Handles

• Excessive force by law enforcement, including officer-involved shootings and use of force against persons in mental health crisis
• Unlawful arrest and detention — seizures made without probable cause or supported only by fabricated evidence
• Unconstitutional searches of homes, vehicles, persons, and electronic devices
• Racial profiling and discriminatory enforcement practices
• Malicious prosecution — criminal charges filed without probable cause and pursued for improper purposes
• First Amendment retaliation — adverse government action taken in response to protected speech or the lawful recording of law enforcement activity
• Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in Nevada jails, prisons, and detention facilities
• Wrongful death resulting from unconstitutional law enforcement conduct
• Monell claims against Nevada municipalities and law enforcement agencies

The primary federal vehicle for civil rights claims against state and local government actors is 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Section 1983 provides a cause of action to any person who has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law by a person acting under color of state law. The statute encompasses law enforcement officers, correctional officials, and other government actors throughout Nevada — and is both broad in its reach and precise in its requirements.

"Color of state law" encompasses conduct carried out with the actual or apparent authority of the government. A police officer who uses excessive force during an arrest acts under color of state law even if the force was unauthorized by department policy. A corrections officer who denies medical care to an incarcerated person acts under color of state law. The relevant question is not whether the conduct was lawful, but whether the actor was clothed with governmental authority when it occurred.

A successful Section 1983 claim may support recovery of compensatory damages for physical injury, lost wages, pain and suffering, and reputational harm; punitive damages where the defendant's conduct was motivated by evil motive or involved reckless or callous indifference to the plaintiff's federal rights; and attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. The statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim in Nevada is two years from the date the constitutional violation accrued.

Fourth Amendment — Unreasonable Search and Seizure

The Fourth Amendment governs the full spectrum of law enforcement encounters including investigatory stops, arrests, searches of persons and property, and the seizure of electronic devices and data. An arrest without probable cause is an unreasonable seizure. A search conducted without a valid warrant and without a recognized exception is an unreasonable search. An investigatory stop unsupported by reasonable articulable suspicion is an unlawful detention. Each of these constitutional violations, when it causes cognizable injury, is actionable under Section 1983.

Fourth Amendment — Excessive Force

The constitutionality of a law enforcement officer's use of force is analyzed under the objective reasonableness standard established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, whether the force was reasonable from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, in light of the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting. Lauren approaches excessive force cases with the same evidentiary discipline she applies in criminal litigation, building the factual record, engaging expert witnesses in use-of-force analysis, and challenging the narrative presented by the defendant agency.

Fourteenth Amendment — Equal Protection and Due Process

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits selective enforcement of the law on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or other protected classification. Nevada has also codified a statutory prohibition on racial profiling in NRS 289.820. Malicious prosecution, the initiation of criminal proceedings without probable cause and for an improper purpose, resulting in termination favorable to the plaintiff, is actionable as a due process violation. Substantive due process protects against government conduct that shocks the conscience.

Eighth Amendment — Conditions of Confinement

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment governs the treatment of convicted prisoners in state custody. Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs, when a prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health, is an Eighth Amendment violation. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extends comparable protections to pretrial detainees.

Qualified immunity is the doctrine that most frequently determines the viability of a Section 1983 claim against an individual government officer. It shields officers from personal liability unless their conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, meaning one so clearly established at the time of the conduct that a reasonable officer in the defendant's position would have known the conduct was unlawful. The doctrine has been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court, and its application has foreclosed recovery in cases that, assessed against any intuitive standard of accountability, appear to warrant it.

Overcoming qualified immunity requires a precise match between the specific facts of the plaintiff's case and the body of prior case law that clearly establishes the right at the relevant level of specificity. Generalized propositions are insufficient. The plaintiff must identify precedent that put the unlawfulness of the specific conduct beyond debate.

The Ninth Circuit has also been among the more plaintiff-favorable federal circuits in its qualified immunity jurisprudence — a consideration that shapes the strategic framing of these arguments in cases before the U.S. District Court of Nevada.

Individual officers are not the only potential defendants in Section 1983 litigation. Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, local government entities — including Nevada cities, counties, and their law enforcement agencies — can be held directly liable under Section 1983 when the constitutional violation is caused by an official policy or custom of the entity. This includes formally adopted policies, informal widespread practices that policymakers can be deemed to have acquiesced in, and failures to train officers on constitutional requirements when the failure amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the officers come into contact.

Monell claims require a different evidentiary architecture than individual officer claims, focused on patterns of conduct within the agency, prior incidents, internal investigations and their outcomes, use-of-force policies, disciplinary records, and training documentation. Lauren develops Monell claims through targeted discovery and, where necessary, expert testimony on law enforcement standards and agency culture.

Section 1983 applies only to persons acting under color of state law. When the constitutional violation is committed by a federal officer such as an agent of the FBI, DEA, Bureau of Prisons, CBP, or other federal agency, the cause of action is a Bivens claim, derived from the Supreme Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Bivens claims are filed in federal district court and follow a legal framework analogous to Section 1983, though the Supreme Court has significantly restricted the extension of Bivens to new contexts in recent decisions.

Lauren's licensure before the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals positions her to litigate these claims in the courts where they must be brought.