Harris v. State of Oregon

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JONATHAN ARMAND HARRIS,

Case No. 3:21-cv-00652-HZ

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO DISMISS

v.

STATE OF OREGON, et al.,

Defendants.

HERNANDEZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Multnomah County Inverness

Jail, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. In a separate Order, the Court granted him leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons set forth

below, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this case with a rambling Complaint in

which he appears to principally allege that, due to inadequate

1 - ORDER TO DISMISS

law libraries at the Multnomah County Detention Center and the

Multnomah County Inverness Jail, he was unable to effectively

defend himself in a state criminal case that resulted in his DUI

conviction and 13-month term of incarceration. He seeks

$2,500,000 in damages.

STANDARDS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court is required to

screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental

entity, officer, or employee and must dismiss a complaint if the

action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and

1915A(b). In order to state a claim, Plaintiff's Complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter which, when accepted as true,

gives rise to a plausible inference that Defendants violated his

constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 556-57

(2007). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not

suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper if it

appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claims that would entitle him to relief. Ortez v.

2 - ORDER TO DISMISS

Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 1996); Cervantes

v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993). Because

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his

pleadings liberally and affords him the benefit of any doubt.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Ortez, 88 F.3d at

806.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, a complaint must include "a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). "Each averment of a

pleading shall be simple, concise and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(e). 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). Plaintiff’s

Complaint is deficient insofar as it does not include a short,

plain statement of his discrete claims, making them difficult to

parse.

In addition, a plaintiff wishing to bring a cause of action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must demonstrate compliance with

the following factors: (1) a violation of rights protected by

the Constitution or created by federal statute; (2) proximately

caused; (3) by conduct of a person; (4) acting under color of

state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir.

1991). A plaintiff "must plead that each . . . defendant,

through the official's own individual actions, has violated the

Constitution." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; see also Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Liability under section

1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the

defendant" in the alleged constitutional deprivation). Plaintiff

fails to clearly identify how each named Defendant, acting under

color of state law, personally participated in the deprivation

of a federal constitutional right.

Moreover, Plaintiff brings suit against a number of

municipal entities but makes no claim that would establish

municipal liability. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs.,

436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). He also seeks to bring this lawsuit

against entities (and possibly individuals) that are not subject

to suit, such as the Multnomah County Circuit Court, the

Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office, and the State of

Oregon. Savage v. Glendale Union High School, 343 F.3d 1036,

1040 (9th Cir. 2003) (states and their agencies are immune from

suit); Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 123-25 (1997)

(prosecutorial immunity); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine,

363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) judicial immunity).

Finally, although Plaintiff takes issue with his purported

lack of access to the courts due to deficient law libraries

within Multnomah County, he was entitled to court-appointed

counsel for his criminal proceedings.1 See ORS 135.040 (statutory

right to counsel). The offer of court-appointed counsel is

sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff's right of access to the courts,

even if the law libraries at his disposal were inadequate.

United States v. Wilson, 690 F.2d 1267, 1272 (9th Cir. 1982).

For all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's

Complaint (#1) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Should

Plaintiff wish to proceed with this action, he must file an

amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted above within 30

days of the date of this Order. Should Plaintiff wish to

continue with this case, he must file an amended complaint

1 Aside from his state DUI proceeding, Plaintiff also references a federal

criminal case, U.S. v. Harris, 3:19-cr-00034-MO-1, which is ongoing and where

the Court’s public records show that he is represented by counsel.

within 30 days that: (1) cures the deficiencies with his

original Complaint; (2) names all defendants in its caption;

(3) describes how each named defendant personally participated

in the deprivation of a federal right; (4) does not incorporate

any prior document by reference; and (5) is on the form provided

by the Court. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in the

dismissal of this case with prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a civil rights

complaint form for his use.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 18, 20 21

DATE Marco A. Hernandez

United States District Judge