United States District Court, D. Oregon
Robin Reitz, Portland Rescue Mission, Portland, OR, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Robert Yamachika, Deputy City Attorney, Office of City Attorney, Portland, OR,
ORDER ON THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
GARR M. KING, District Judge.
Plaintiff Robin Mark Reitz, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint brought claims under state law for battery, false imprisonment, and negligent medical treatment against former Mayor Sam Adams, the Multnomah County jail supervisor, and the medical supervisor at the jail. I previously dismissed Adams and clarified that the only claim remaining was one against the jail supervisor and medical staff supervisor for improper medical treatment while in jail. Before serving his Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. In his Third Amended Complaint, he now names as defendants the "City of Portland Police Department, " former Mayor Sam Adams, Multnomah County, the jail supervisor, and the medical supervisor and staff; his claims appear to again be centered on his arrest and treatment while in jail. Pending before me is the City of Portland and Adams' Motion to Dismiss.
A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) addresses the court's subject matter jurisdiction. The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may attack the substance of the complaint, even though the allegations establish jurisdiction, and may rely on affidavits or other evidence before the court. St. Clair v. City of Chico , 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) will be granted if plaintiff fails to allege the "grounds" of his "entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation omitted). This means that, although a plaintiff need not allege detailed facts, the pleading must provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. A claim rises above the speculative level "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may only be dismissed "for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Engebretson v. Mahoney , 724 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Silva v. Di Vittorio , 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011)). The court should allow a pro se plaintiff to amend the complaint unless it would be impossible to cure the deficiencies of the complaint by amendment. Johnson v. Lucent Tech. Inc. , 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011).
Finally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides:
A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
In addition, "Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." ...