Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gonzalez v. Portland Police Bureau

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

July 16, 2014

AMINADAD GONZALEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
PORTLAND POLICE BUREAU, WILLIAM JOHNSON, HYTHUM ISMAIL, ANDREW HEARST, and CHRISTOPHER LINDSEY, Defendants.

Aminadad Gonzalez Oregon State Penitentiary Salem, OR, Plaintiff appearing pro se.

James G. Rice Deputy City Attorney, City of Portland, Portland, OR, Attorney for Defendants.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

DENNIS JAMES HUBEL, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on motion of the defendant Portland Police Bureau ("PPB") to dismiss it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. #23. The PPB argues it is an improper party in this action because it "is not a person' subject to liability under federal civil rights law." Id., p. 2.

Despite defense counsel's discussion with the plaintiff regarding this matter, see id., p. 1, and the court's order directing the plaintiff to file his opposition to the motion by July 23, 2014, the plaintiff has failed to respond. Indeed, the court can conceive of no argument the plaintiff could make that would justify denying the PPB's motion. As other judges of this court have recognized, "[c]ourts have repeatedly decided that city police departments cannot be sued under federal civil rights laws." Keller v. City of Portland, Case No. 98-cv-263-ST, 1998 WL 1060222, at **3-4, Findings and Recommendations (D. Or. Nov. 13, 1998) (citations omitted) (Stewart, MJ); adopted by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty, Dkt. #64 (Feb. 12, 1999).

The undersigned recommends the motion be granted, and the PPB be dismissed from this action.

SCHEDULING ORDER

These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due by August 4, 2014. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, then any response is due by September 2, 2014. By the earlier of the response due date or the date a response is filed, the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.