United States District Court, D. Oregon
DANIEL J. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff,
J. TAYLOR, et al., Defendants.
A. Hernandez ' United States District Judge.
an inmate at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
(EOCI), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Currently before the Court are Plaintiffs
Motions to Amend and for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 9
filed his original Complaint on October 6, 2016, alleging
that Defendants violated his First, Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him adequate mental
health care, subjecting him to excessive force, refusing to
properly process his grievances, mishandling his mail, and
subjecting him to harassment and retaliation. Compl. (ECF No.
2) at 45. On December 21, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, denied his
Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and sought waiver of
service from the Defendants. Orders (ECF No. 5, 6, and 7). On
January 19, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' motion to
extend the time to file a waiver of service to February 22,
2017. Order (ECF No. 12). Consequently, as of this date,
Defendants have not been served or waived service of process.
Motion to Amend
moves to file an Amended Complaint to (1) add as Defendants
the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) and several of
its supervisory officials; (2) add several factual
allegations; and (3) "adjust slightly" his legal
claims and prayer for relief. Mot. to Am. (ECF No. 9) at 2.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (a)(1) (A), a plaintiff
may amend hi s complaint once as a matter of course within
twenty-one days after serving it. Because Defendants have yet
to \ be served or waive service, this Court grants
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend. The Clerk of the Court j is
directed to detach Plaintiffs Proposed Amended Complaint from
his Motion and file it in the I Court record. 1
Order Dismissing Amended Complaint in Part
Court must dismiss an action initiated by a prisoner seeking
redress from a I governmental entity or officer or employee,
if the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous j or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief j against a defendant
who is immune from such relief 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). In j order to state a claim, a
plaintiff must allege facts which, when accepted as true,
give rise to a j plausible inference that the defendants
violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights. Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007).
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss v.
U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
"A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal
quotations omitted). Plaintiff is proceedingpro se,
and therefore this Court construes the pleadings liberally
and affords Plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff adds several supervisory
officials as Defendants. However, Plaintiff fails to set
forth any facts to support a reasonable inference that the
Defendants were personally involved in the violation of
Plaintiff s constitutional rights. It is well settled that a
ii defendant is not vicariously liable under § 1983 for
the conduct of his or her employees. Monell v. New York
City Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94
(1978). Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is dismissed as to
Collette Peters, Elizabeth Craig, Kim Brockamp, Mitch Morrow,
Birdie Janet Worley, Brian Belleque, and Adrian O'Connor.
Additionally, the Amended Complaint is j dismissed as to ODOC
on the basis of sovereign immunity. See Puerto Rico
Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993) (absent a clear and
unequivocal waiver, the j Eleventh Amendment bars suit in
federal court against either a state or an agency acting
under its control).
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
moves for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to (1)
provide him a mental health evaluation and care by a
"hired state licensed psychiatrist;" (2) commence
an "audit" of the prison's grievance processes
and to accept and investigate his grievances; (3) commence an
"audit" of the EOCI mailroom staff and order them
to deliver his mail immediately; (4) commence an ]
"audit" of EOCFs "mental health care
infrastructure, grievance system infrastructure, mailroom
arbitrations, and segregation staff training and general rule
updates and/or policy changes from May 16, 2012 to