# Harris v. State of Oregon

> District Court, D. Oregon · June 18, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393420

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** June 18, 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/10393420

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393420. Public record. Not legal advice.