United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
Honorable Paul Papak United States Magistrate Judge
plaintiff Nicholas Remington brings this civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against prison officials at the
Two Rivers Correctional Institution (TRCI), including
Superintendent John Myrick, Lt. Cam A. Bauer, Cap't David
Pedro, Larry P. Lytle, OIC, and CO. Lavelle Braun. Plaintiff
alleges that while he was in custody at TRCI, he was placed
in the Disciplinary Segregation Unit (DSU) for six days,
violating his rights to procedural due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff also alleges that in DSU,
lights were left on constantly, and excessive noise from
other inmates and from loud faucets made sleeping difficult,
violating his rights to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff moves
to file an amended complaint. For the following reasons, I
grant Plaintiffs motion to file an amended complaint and
Defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismiss this action
following background is from Plaintiffs proposed First
Amended Civil Rights Complaint (Am. Compl.). Plaintiff was
housed in the Administrative Housing Unit at TRCI on May 25,
2016, when a corrections officer told him that an inmate
named Daniel Garges was scheduled to be placed in the unit
that afternoon. The officer told Plaintiff that TRCI staff
were aware of a 2008 "conflict order" that the
Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) had issued for
Plaintiff and Garges. The officer showed Plaintiff a photo of
Garges, but Plaintiff did not remember him or what Plaintiff
describes as the "minor verbal incident" that gave
rise to the 2008 conflict order. Am. Compl. ¶¶
14-15. That afternoon in a common area, Garges and Plaintiff
talked amicably. Plaintiff describes Garges as
"empathetic." Am. Compl. ¶ 19.
next day, Plaintiff and Garges were moved to the Disciplinary
Segregation Unit (DSU) without justification and in violation
of ODOC rules. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20-23. The ODOC
document requesting the administrative hold for Plaintiff
stated that Plaintiff and Garges "have an institution
separation that expired after their release from prison. This
conflict is ongoing, Both Inmates will be placed in ., .
Segregation until a solution can be determined." Compl.,
Ex. 1, at 1, ECF No. 2-1.
alleges that during his six days in DSU, he was subjected to
"24 hour in cell illumination uncontrollable by
Plaintiff that was sufficient to [interfere] with Plaintiffs
sleeping patterns." Am. Compl. ¶ 25, He alleges
that he also experienced "[e]xtreme noise levels at all
hours" from inmates "yelling from cell to cell,
tier to tier, and section to section, " and from leaky
faucets that made a "loud sucking noise sufficient to
wake anyone up from a sound sleep without notice." Am.
Comp. ¶25, Plaintiff alleges that he has exhausted his
administrative remedies. Plaintiff submits as exhibits his
initial grievance, ODOC's responses to his grievance, and
his appeals of the responses. Am. Compl., Ex. 1. Plaintiffs
grievance complained that his placement in DSU violated ODOC
rules, but did not mention conditions of confinement such as
lighting or noise.
complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.1" Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A 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. The
plausibility standard . .. asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully."
Id. (citations omitted). The court is not required
to accept legal conclusions, unsupported by alleged facts, as
court should construe the pleadings of a pro se litigant more
leniently than those drafted by a lawyer. See Eldridge v.
Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987).
"'Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment
can cure the defect, ... a pro se litigant is entitled to
notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity
to amend prior to dismissal of the action.'"
Garity v. APWU Nat'l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848,
854 (9th Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting
Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9tli
Cir. 1995) (per curiam)).
Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment Claims
asserts that conditions in DSU violated his Eighth Amendment
rights. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs Eighth
Amendment claim, arguing that he failed to exhaust
administrative remedies for this claim. Plaintiff responds
that ODOC rules would have prohibited him from filing a
second grievance about conditions at DSU in addition to his
grievance about the alleged due process violations.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act's ...