United States District Court, D. Oregon
A. HERNANDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an inmate at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI),
brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Currently before the Court are Plaintiffs Motions to
Compel, for Preliminary Injunction, for Leave to File Amended
Complaint, and to Answer (ECF Nos. 15, 16, 19, and 20).
Motion to Amend
19, 2016, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs original Complaint
(ECF No. 2) because it violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and 10(b).
The Court discussed the deficiencies of the Complaint as
Plaintiff lists the name of each Defendant followed by a
brief summary of the Defendant's conduct and/or
constitutional amendment(s) allegedly violated. As a result,
in order to accurately construe Plaintiffs Complaint, it is
necessary to make an outline of potential claims for each
incident and match the claims to the Defendants allegedly
involved. Construing the Complaint in this manner is overly
burdensome and creates the risk that the Court or Defendants
will fail to accurately determine the nature and number of
Plaintiff s claims, or incorrectly identify the Defendants
against whom each claim is brought.
Finally, the State of Oregon, SRCI, and the SRCI Medical
Department are dismissed on the basis that they are entitled
to sovereign immunity from suit. Puerto Rico Aqueduct
& Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf&Eddy, Inc., 506U.S.
139, 144 (1993); see also Will v. Michigan Dep 't. of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63-64, 71 (1989) (state is
not a person within the meaning of § 1983).
of Dismissal (ECF No. 8) at 3.
In the same Order, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to
amend with the following instructions:
Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint which sets forth
claims for relief. For example, if Plaintiff seeks to allege
that Defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances,
he shall allege a claim for retaliation, list the defendants
against whom the claim is brought, and set forth a concise
statement of facts that support a reasonable inference that
each Defendant is liable for the alleged occurrence.
Plaintiff is advised that each named Defendant must have been
personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation.
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
A Defendant is not liable merely on the basis that he or she
is a supervisor. See Monell v. New York City Dep't of
Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978).
October 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 14). On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to
File an Amended Complaint, with a proposed Second
this Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to amend, this
Court grants his Motion to Amend (ECF No. 19). The Clerk of
the Court is directed to detach the proposed Second Amended
Complaint from the Motion and file it in the Court record.
However, this Court dismisses Plaintiffs Second Amended
Complaint for the reasons set forth in the Court's
previous Order of Dismissal, i.e., for failure to comply with
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and 10(b). See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b) (directing court
to dismiss complaint brought by prisoner against governmental
entity, official, or employee for failure to state a claim).
again sets forth his factual allegations in a section
organized by defendant,  and also in a section
captioned "Statement of Facts" (which is ordered
chronologically),  The Second Amended Complaint is overly
burdensome because "it is necessary to make an outline
of potential claims for each incident and match the claims to
the Defendants allegedly involved." Order of Dismissal
(ECF No. 8) at 3. As previously noted by the Court, this
creates the risk that the Court or Defendants will fail to
determine accurately the nature and number of Plaintiff s
claims, or will incorrectly identify the Defendants against
whom each claim is brought. Id. This problem is
exacerbated by the fact that under the heading "Relief
Requested, " Plaintiff sets forth his claims against
all Defendants despite the fact that it is apparent
from the face of the Second Amended Complaint that not all
Defendants were personally involved in each alleged
violation, See ...