United States District Court, D. Oregon
STEVEN B. ANDERSEN, an individual, Plaintiff,
PORTLAND SATURDAY MARKET, a nonprofit corporation, & LISA GUGINO, an individual, Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Steven B. Andersen brings this action against
Portland Saturday Market and Lisa Gugino. Plaintiff moves to
proceed in forma pauperis . Because Plaintiff
has minimal income and significant debt, the Court grants the
motion. However, for the reasons explained below, the Court
dismisses the Complaint  without prejudice.
brings this case against Defendants Portland Saturday Market
and Lisa Gugino, executive director of Portland Saturday
Market. Compl. 2, ECF 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
breached their contract with Plaintiff and violated his
rights under the Due Process Clause and the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. Id. at 2. These claims all stem from his
dismissal as a member of Portland Saturday Market in October
asserts he was a member of Portland Saturday Market between
April 8, 2012, and October 13, 2015. Id. Though the
details surrounding his dismissal are hazy, Plaintiff's
membership was allegedly terminated because of his conduct
towards other members and employees of the market, including
the alleged harassment of “[a] former friend and fellow
vendor.” Id. at 2, 4. During this process,
Plaintiff alleges he was not given any “opportunity to
learn what conduct was considered by the board as being so
inappropriate as to warrant a dismissal”. Id.
to his termination, Plaintiff alleges that he requested a
meeting with the Board to address the “unfair
treatment” he received from Defendant Gugino.
Id. at 3. A hearing was scheduled and allegedly
cancelled when the vendor withdrew her harassment complaint.
Id. at 4. Plaintiff then filed a defamation lawsuit
against the complaining vendor. Id. at 5. He alleges
that this case was settled and the vendor “provided an
affidavit that fully exonerated Plaintiff of the
charge.” Id. During the course of the
defamation case, Plaintiff allegedly learned from opposing
council that there had been an additional complaint filed
against Plaintiff with Portland Saturday Market. Id.
The identity of this person was never disclosed to Plaintiff.
Id. Plaintiff also alleges he was blackmailed by
another member and the executive director. Id. at 6.
claims that, as a result of his dismissal, he lost ten years
of income amounting to actual damages of $323, 318.
Id. at 7. He also seeks punitive damages in the
amount of $2, 176, 682 because of the “unfair,
discriminatory, and unlawful treatment he alleges he received
from PSM staff and the Chair of the Board of
complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed
at any time, including before service of process, if the
court determines that:
(B) the action or appeal-
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (sua sponte
dismissals under section 1915 “spare prospective
defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering”
complaints which are “frivolous, malicious, or
repetitive”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all
in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed
by inmates). A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks