United States District Court, D. Oregon
Paul Oien Plaintiff Pro Se
F. Rosenblum Attorney General, Shannon M. Vincent Attorneys
OPINION & ORDER
A.Hernarldez United States District Judge
Ioan Paul Oien, an inmate at the Two Rivers Correctional
Institution (TRCI), brings this action against the State of
Oregon, the State's Department of Corrections, TRCI, and
Corporal Davis, contending that Davis sexually assaulted
Plaintiff during an unclothed strip search and that Plaintiff
has been retaliated against for filing this lawsuit.
Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that
Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
and that all Defendants except for Davis are not proper
Defendants in this action. Because I agree with Defendants on
both issues, I grant Defendants' motion.
entered the custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections
(ODOC) on February 16, 2017, moving to TRCI on March 15,
2017. Arnell Eynon Decl. ¶¶ 4, 19, ECF 19. In his
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff contends that on April 20, 2017,
after a visit at TRCI from his grandmother Cathy Nelson,
Davis strip searched him inside the bathroom for no reason
and while doing so and after putting on latex gloves, stuck
his finger in Plaintiff's "bottom." Am. Compl.
¶ 6. Plaintiff alleges that he contacted Behavioral
Health Services, but they did not help him. Id. He
asked to talk to a counselor and as of the filing of the
Amended Complaint on August 28, 2017, "it has still not
happened." Id. Plaintiff alleges he was told,
however, that Davis was going to get terminated from his job
because of his unprofessional conduct and that the officers
in charge would insure that Davis stayed away from Plaintiff.
Id. Despite this assurance, Plaintiff alleges that
Davis did not get terminated and still works at TRCI as a
corrections officer. Id.
contends that although he was told a detective would talk to
him "right away, " it took five months for that to
occur. Id. Then, Plaintiff asserts, when the
detective came, he treated Plaintiff "very badly, "
threatened him, and told the officers in charge to retaliate
against him. Id. According to Plaintiff, he has been
retaliated against and threatened. Id. In one
alleged incident, officers placed him back in his cell with a
cellmate after the cellmate assaulted him and in
contravention of his need for a single cell. Id.
Moreover, "TRCI" moved Plaintiff to a different
unit for no reason in retaliation for filing the lawsuit.
Id. As a result of the move, he lost his prison job.
than these allegations in his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
submits a Declaration in which he states that Davis performed
an unclothed search on Plaintiff on August 20,
and "stuck his finger up inside my bottom."
Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 8, ECF 25. The Declaration does not
address any of the alleged retaliation facts.
on his allegations, Plaintiff contends that Davis violated
his Eighth Amendment rights and that "Defendants, TRCI,
Corporal Davis, and DOC" have retaliated against him in
violation of his First Amendment rights. Am. Compl.
¶¶ 8, 10. He seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief as well as noneconmic and punitive damages.
judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving
party bears the initial responsibility of informing the court
of the basis of its motion, and identifying those portions of
"'the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, ' which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)
(quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).
the moving party meets its initial burden of demonstrating
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the burden
then shifts to the nonmoving party to present "specific
facts" showing a "genuine issue for trial."
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924,
927-28 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and
designate facts showing an issue for trial. Bias v.
Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324).
substantive law governing a claim determines whether a fact
is material. Suever v. Connell, 579 F.3d 1047, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009). The court draws inferences from the facts in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Earl v.
Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th
factual context makes the nonmoving party's claim as to
the existence of a material issue of fact implausible, that
party must come forward with more persuasive evidence to
support his claim than would otherwise be necessary.