# Opinion

> District Court, D. Oregon · March 9, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11275836

## Case

- **Full name:** John Coe Richardson v. Deschutes County Circuit Court, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** March 9, 2026
- **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/11275836

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating private entities are treated as state actors in “exceptional cases”
- stating that screening dismissals of claims filed in forma pauperis are often made sua sponte before issuance of process

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

JOHN COE RICHARDSON, Case No. 6:25-cv-01606-MTK

Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER
v.
DESCHUTES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
et al.,
Defendants.

KASUBHAI, United States District Judge:
Self-Represented Plaintiff John Coe Richardson (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit in
September 2025. The Court approved his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) but
dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. Op. & Order, ECF No. 11. For the reasons below,
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 16) is dismissed. Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants Deschutes County Circuit Court and Deschutes County District Attorney’s
Office are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s claims against all other defendants are dismissed
with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s Consolidated Motion to Lodge Returned Certified Mail (ECF
No. 18), Motion Regarding Steven Pugh’s Refusal of Service (ECF No. 19), Notice of Sixth
Refusal of Service and Motion for Order Authorizing Alternative Service and Order Deeming
Service Effective as to Steven Pugh (ECF No. 20), and Notice of Seventh Evasion and Refusal of
Service by Defendant Steven Pugh (ECF No. 21)1 are denied as moot.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against
Deschutes County Circuit Court, Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”),

Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office and Animal Control (“Animal Control”), Deschutes County
District Attorney’s Office (“DA’s Office”), Steven Pugh, Matthew Sonneby, Central Oregon
Humane Society,2 Deschutes Legal Counsel, and Does 1-20 (“Defendants”). First Am. Compl.
(“FAC”) 1, 3, ECF No. 16. Plaintiff’s claims arise from his arrest on April 29, 2025, and related
proceedings in state court. FAC 2-4.
STANDARDS
A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed at any time, including before
service of process, if the court determines that the action or appeal is: (1) “frivolous or
malicious;” (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also

Neitzke v. Willaims, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (sua sponte dismissals under section 1915 “spare
prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering” complaints which are
“frivolous, malicious, or repetitive”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)
(en banc) (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by

1 Plaintiff’s Notice of Seventh Evasion requests the Court take judicial notice, deem service
performed, or permit alternate service. Not. 7th Evasion & Refusal Serv. 2 ECF No. 21. The
Court construes it as a motion accordingly.
2 Plaintiff does not include Defendant Central Oregon Humane Society in the case caption but
lists it as a party and includes claims against it in the Complaint. The caption must name all the
parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
inmates) overruled in part on other grounds by Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir.
2014). A complaint is “frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Hejazi v. United States, No. 20-35248, 2021 WL 6103104, at *1 (9th
Cir. Dec. 22, 2021).

A complaint must comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
While a complaint . . . does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s
obligation to provide the “grounds” of [their] “entitle[ment] to relief requires more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (on a motion
to dismiss, courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation”). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level . . . .
Id. (citations omitted). The Supreme Court has emphasized that, when assessing the sufficiency
of any civil complaint, a court must distinguish factual contentions—which allege behavior on
the part of the defendant that, if true, would satisfy one or more elements of the claim asserted—
and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. In short, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.
Courts must “continue to construe [self-represented] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler,
627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Complaints filed by self-represented plaintiffs “must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Id. (quoting Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). A self-represented litigant will be given leave to
amend their complaint unless the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully seized his dogs, failed to address his
objections to the seizure, denied him due process, charged him in an untimely manner, and
infringed on his right to bear arms. FAC 1-5. Plaintiff requests declaratory relief, compensatory
damages, costs and fees, and additional relief consistent with law for violations of his Second,

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. FAC 6.
I. Plaintiff Brings Claims Under Section 1983.
Section 1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights[] but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994)
(internal quotation marks omitted). A Section 1983 claim requires a plaintiff to establish two
elements: “(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated,
and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of State law.”
Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Long v. County
of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006)). To determine whether Defendants acted
under color of law, “[the court] must identify the ‘specific conduct of which the Plaintiff

complains.’” Rawson v. Recovery Innovations, Inc., 975 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting
Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010)).
Section 1983 is limited in its applicability to state and local governments. First, the
Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State and its agencies, absent unequivocal consent by
the State. Jensen v. Brown, 131 F.4th 677, 696 (9th Cir. 2025). Section 1983 is not an
unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity by states. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491
U.S. 58, 70 (1989). Section 1983 therefore does not permit plaintiffs to sue states, including
“governmental entities that are considered ‘arms of the [s]tate.’” Id. When a claim is barred by
sovereign immunity, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim, and it must be dismissed with
prejudice. Frigard v. United States, 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir. 1988).
Sovereign immunity does not generally shield municipal entities because they are not
considered arms of the state. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (explaining

that Congress intended for Section 1983 to apply against municipalities). A municipal entity,
however, cannot be held liable under Section 1983 for merely employing a tortfeasor. Benavidez
v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1153 (9th Cir. 2021). A plaintiff must show the alleged
constitutional deprivation arises from an official policy or custom of the municipal entity.
Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784, 793 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc); Connick v.
Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011) (“[U]nder § 1983, local governments are responsible only for
‘their own illegal acts.’”) (citation omitted). “The custom or policy must be a ‘deliberate choice
to follow a course of action . . . made from among various alternatives by the official or officials
responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question.’”
Benavidez, 993 F.3d at 1153.

Section 1983 is generally inapplicable to private parties, reaching only those that act
under color of state law. O’Handler v. Weber, 62 F.4th 1145, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2023) (stating
private entities are treated as state actors in “exceptional cases”). To analyze whether a private
party acted under color of state law, courts assess “whether the alleged constitutional violation
was caused by the ‘exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of
conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible.’” Id. at 1156
(quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)). If so, the court asks whether
the party charged with the constitutional violation “may fairly be said to be a state actor.” Id.
(quoting Lugar, 457 U.S. at 937).
A. Immunity
Plaintiff alleges Section 1983 liability against the Deschutes County Circuit Court and the
DA’s Office. These entities are immune from suit under Section 1983 because they are state
entities shielded by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff’s claims against Deschutes County
Circuit Court and the DA’s Office are dismissed with prejudice.

B. Failure to State a Claim
1. Plaintiff’s Claims Against Deschutes Legal Counsel and Does 1-20
Plaintiff fails to make any factual allegations whatsoever about Deschutes Legal Counsel
and Does 1-20. Plaintiff’s claims against these defendants are dismissed because Plaintiff has not
offered any factual allegations from which this Court could award relief against Defendants
Deschutes Legal Counsel and Does 1-20. See Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th
Cir. 1995) (holding even self-represented pleadings “must meet some minimum threshold in
providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong”).
2. Plaintiff’s Monell claims
Plaintiff also brings Monell claims against the Sheriff’s Office and Animal Control which
are municipal entities. Plaintiff appears to allege that the Sheriff’s Office arrested him and took
him to the Deschutes County Jail and that Animal Control seized his dogs at the time of his

arrest. FAC ¶ 14. Plaintiff makes no allegation of a specific official policy, alleging only a
threadbare recital that “[v]iolations resulted from county customs, policies, and deliberate
indifference.” FAC 6. Plaintiff further does not allege which violations resulted from county
policies or how county policies impacted his constitutional rights. Plaintiff fails to state a claim
against the Sheriff’s Office and Animal Control.
3. Plaintiff’s Remaining Claims
Plaintiff also alleges Section 1983 claims against individuals. He alleges Defendant Pugh
“took an exculpatory video,” posted it online, and seized evidence. FAC ¶¶ 9, 12, 13. Plaintiff
alleges Defendant Sonneby withdrew from representation in Plaintiff’s criminal case on June 6,
2025, leaving him without counsel until July 14, 2025. FAC ¶¶ 18-19. He further alleges a

threadbare recital that “[d]efendants acted jointly under color of state law.” FAC ¶ 29. Public
defenders and private attorneys generally do not qualify as persons acting under the color of state
law for purposes of Section 1983 claims. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1982);
Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff fails to
state a claim against Defendant Pugh and Defendant Sonneby because he makes no allegations
from which the Court could conclude Defendants Pugh and Sonneby acted under color of state
law.
Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant Central Oregon Humane Society exercised delegated
custody and disposition authority over Plaintiff’s seized animals without notice or process.” FAC
¶¶ 11, 17, 27. Construing Plaintiff’s allegations liberally, he appears to allege that the Humane

Society violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because it took custody
of his dogs after Plaintiff was arrested. FAC ¶¶ 14, 17, 27. Plaintiff has not alleged that the
Humane Society exercised some right or privilege created by the state because he does not allege
the source of the Humane Society’s authority over his animals.
Plaintiff further has not alleged plausible facts to find that the Humane Society could
have been a state actor. A private entity is a state actor if they “exercise[] power possessed by
virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of
state law.” Pasadena Republican Club v. W. Just. Ctr., 985 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2021).
Courts use four tests to conduct that inquiry: (1) the public function test, (2) the state compulsion
test, (3) the nexus test, and (4) the joint action test. O’Handley, 62 F.4th at 1157. “The public
function test is satisfied only on a showing that the function at issue is ‘both traditionally and
exclusively governmental.’” Rawson, 975 F.3d at 748 (citation omitted). The state compulsion
test requires that the state “has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant

encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the
State.” Id. The nexus test requires a “sufficiently close nexus” between the state and private
actor to treat the private actor as the state itself. Id. The joint action test requires that the state
“significantly involves itself in the private parties' actions and decisionmaking in a complex and
deeply intertwined process.” O’Handley, 62 F.4th at 1159 (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). The inquiry focuses on whether the private actor “exercised power ‘possessed by virtue
of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state
law.’” Rawson, 975 F.3d at 748 (citation omitted).
Plaintiff here makes no allegations of a traditional government function, of any state actor
being involved in the Humane Society’s conduct with respect to his dogs, of any facts to support

a sufficiently close nexus or joint action between a state actor and the Humane Society, or of any
facts to support a state actor’s deeply intertwined involvement in the Humane Society’s conduct.
Plaintiff’s complaint therefore fails to state a claim for relief against the Humane Society.
II. Leave to Amend
“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). “[T]he grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District
Court.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Plaintiff has been given leave to amend once
and his amended complaint failed to cure the deficiencies of his first complaint. The Court gives
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint against the Sheriff’s Office, Animal Control, Steven
Pugh, Matthew Sonneby, Central Oregon Humane Society, Deschutes Legal Counsel, and Does
1-20. The Court notes that Plaintiff has submitted several supplemental filings (ECF Nos. 9, 12,
14, 17). To the extent Plaintiff seeks to make factual allegations with those filings, he must raise
them in his second amended complaint. Failure to cure the deficiencies discussed above will
result in dismissal with prejudice.

III. Plaintiff’s Other Motions
Plaintiff also filed other motions: (1) a Consolidated Motion to Lodge Returned Certified
Mail, for Court-Directed Service, Rule 72 Review, and Referral to District Judge; (2) a Motion
Regarding Steven Pugh’s Refusal of Service; (3) a Notice of Sixth Refusal of Service and
Motion for Order Authorizing Alternative Service and Order Deeming Service Effective as to
Steven Pugh, and (4) Notice of Seventh Evasion and Refusal of Service by Defendant Steven
Pugh (ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20, and 21). These motions seek alternate service and judicial notice.
They are denied as moot because Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. The Court also notes that
Plaintiff believes that his case has not been assigned to a District Judge, but a District Judge is
presiding over his case. Any further motion to refer the case to a District Judge will be denied as
frivolous. The Court also notes that Plaintiff appears to be attempting to serve parties to this case.

The Court has now twice dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint prior to the issuance of process. The
Court will not order service of process unless Plaintiff cures the defects in his complaint outlined
above. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324 (stating that screening dismissals of claims filed in forma
pauperis are often made sua sponte before issuance of process).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16) is
DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Deschutes County Circuit Court and
Deschutes County District Attorney’s Office are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s claims
against Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office, Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Animal Control,
Steven Pugh, Matthew Sonneby, Central Oregon Humane Society, Deschutes Legal Counsel,
and Does 1-20 are dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20, and
21) are DENIED as moot. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, he must do so within
thirty days of this Order.

The Court further finds that any appeal from this Order would be frivolous and thus
would not be taken in “good faith” as that term is used in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge
v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
DATED this 9th day of March 2026.

s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (he/him)
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11275836. Public record. Not legal advice.