# Campbell v. Cares NW

> District Court, D. Oregon · June 9, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393373

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** June 9, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393373

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MATTHEW CAMPBELL,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00369-AC
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO DISMISS
v.
STATE OF OREGON; OREGON DHS;
CARES NW; and MULTNOMAH COUNTY,
Defendants.
IMMERGUT, J.
Plaintiff, an adult in custody at the Multnomah County Inverness Jail, brings this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to an Order entered this date, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. However, for the reasons set forth below, the
Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff names as defendants the State of Oregon, Oregon DHS, Cares NW, and Multnomah
County. Plaintiff’s Complaint is an eleven-page narrative statement which does not contain a short
1 - ORDER TO DISMISS
an plain statement of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appears to challenge the investigation and
prosecution of criminal sex offenses against him. He contends that unidentified police officers
falsely arrested him and that unidentified persons who interviewed the victim(s) used suggestive
questioning tactics. By way of remedy, Plaintiff seeks money damages and the dismissal of all

criminal charges against him.
STANDARDS
A district court must dismiss an action initiated by a prisoner seeking redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee, if the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous
or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b).
When a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and afford the

plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Moreover, before
dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, the court supplies the plaintiff
with a statement of the complaint’s deficiencies. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839
F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1988); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). A pro se
litigant will be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the deficiencies of
the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623; Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
DISCUSSION

I. Procedural Deficiencies
Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] civil action is commenced
by filing a complaint with the court.” Pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
2 - ORDER TO DISMISS
Procedure, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” “Each allegation must be simple, concise and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(d)(1). If the factual elements of a cause of action are scattered throughout the complaint but are
not organized into a “short and plain statement of the claim,” dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a)

is proper. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Nevijel v.
North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (district court may dismiss an action
with prejudice due to a litigant’s failure to comply with Rule 8(a) if meaningful, less drastic
sanctions have been explored); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (complaints
that are “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant” and that “consist[]
largely of immaterial background information” are subject to dismissal under Rule 8); Cafasso,
United States ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011)

(citing cases upholding Rule 8 dismissals where pleadings were “verbose,” “confusing,” “distracting,
ambiguous, and unintelligible,” “highly repetitious,” and comprised of “incomprehensible
rambling”). Plaintiff’s Complaint does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 3 or Rule 8.
II. Substantive Deficiencies
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege that a defendant, while
acting under color of state law, caused a deprivation of the plaintiff’s federal rights. 42 U.S.C. §
1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045
(9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A § 1983 plaintiff must establish both causation-in-fact and

proximate (i.e., legal) causation. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir.
2008). Allegations regarding Section 1983 causation “must be individualized and focus on the duties
and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused
3 - ORDER TO DISMISS
a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
“Sweeping conclusory allegations [regarding causation] will not suffice[.]” Id. (citation omitted).
Defendants State of Oregon and Oregon DHS are immune from suit. The Eleventh
Amendment preserves the sovereign immunity of the states by providing the judicial power of the

United States “shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted” against a state. “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State or its agencies
for all types of relief, absent unequivocal consent by the state. The Eleventh Amendment
jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the nature of relief sought and extends to instrumentalities and
agencies.” Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963,
967 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also McCall v. Oregon, Case No.
3:12-cv-00465-PK, 2013 WL 6196966, at *8 (D. Or. Nov. 13, 2013) (“[t]he State of Oregon has not

waived it immunity” in § 1983 cases).
“Persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are state and local officials sued in their individual
capacities, private individuals and entities which act under color of state law, and/or the local
governmental entity itself. Vance v. County of Santa Clara, 928 F.Supp. 993, 995-96 (N.D. Cal.
1996). A municipal entity is liable under § 1983 only if the plaintiff alleges his constitutional injury
was caused by employees acting pursuant to the municipality’s policy or custom. Mt. Healthy City
Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977); Monell, 436 U.S. at 691 (1978).
Multnomah County may not be held vicariously liable under § 1983 simply based on allegedly

unconstitutional acts of its employees. Board of Cty. Comm’rs. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997);
Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. Instead, a municipality such as a county may be held liable “when
execution of a government’s policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 694.
4 - ORDER TO DISMISS
Plaintiff does not allege facts supporting a claim that the actions allegedly taken by unidentified
county employees in this case amounted to execution of a government policy or custom.
Accordingly, Plaintiff does not state a claim against Multnomah County upon which relief may be
granted.

As noted, to obtain relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must plead that a person “acting under
color of state law” violated plaintiff’s rights. Acts “‘under color of state law’ refer to acts
attributable to states of the United States.” Gerritsen v. de la Madrid Hurtado, 819 F.2d 1511, 1518
(9th Cir. 1987) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). A defendants acts “under color of state law” where he
or she “exercised power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the
wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988).
Here, Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing that defendant Cares NW acted under color

of state law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against this defendant must be dismissed.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks the exclusion of evidence in his criminal proceedings or
dismissal of the charges against him, Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal. See Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971) (federal courts must abstain from interfering with pending state
court proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances). To the extent Plaintiff seeks money
damages, his claims may not continue at least until after the criminal case against him is resolved
and a stay of the case pending that resolution is appropriate. See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d
965, 981 (9th Cir. 2004) (“when damages are sought and Younger principles apply, it makes sense

for the federal court to refrain from exercising jurisdiction temporarily by staying its hand until such
time as the state proceeding is no longer pending”) (emphasis in original). As such, should Plaintiff
file an Amended Complaint curing the other deficiencies noted above, Plaintiff is advised that this
5 - ORDER TO DISMISS
action will be stayed pending resolution of his state criminal proceedings. Should Plaintiff be
convicted, the action will be subject to dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff may file an
Amended Complaint, curing the deficiencies noted above, within 30 days of the date of this order.
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an Amended Complaint shall result in the dismissal of this
proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 9th day of June, 2021.

Kaw ) Amimergedt-
Karin J. Infhergut
United States District Judge

6 - ORDER TO DISMISS

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393373. Public record. Not legal advice.