United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
a former inmate at the Oregon State Hospital, brings this
civil rights action pro se. Pursuant to an Order
entered this date, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons
set forth below, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs Complaint.
Complaint is a two-page narrative statement about events
which occurred while he was incarcerated at the Oregon State
Hospital ("OSH") sometime in the last three months
alleges that during a trip away from OSH under escort from
Oregon State Police officers, the officers failed to secure
Plaintiffs ankles with chains. As a result, Plaintiff states
he was able to run away from the officers and that when he
did so he tripped and fell, injuring his shoulder. Plaintiff
states that at the time he was taking medication prescribed
by Dr. Goetz which caused him to behave "off
kilter." Plaintiff states he was taken to a hospital
emergency room, where a doctor informed him he had broken his
shoulder and would likely require surgery. Upon his return to
OSH, Plaintiff states Dr. Goetz mis-prescribed a sling.
Plaintiff states that at the time there was "discomfort,
" but that there is extreme pain now.
concludes by stating if his feet had been chained he would
not have been able to run away and would not have tripped. He
states that "[b]ecause the above named defendants failed
at this one task, I am suing for damages in an unspecified
district court must dismiss an action initiated by a
plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if the court
determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In
order to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege facts which,
when accepted as true, give rise to a plausible inference
that the defendants violated the plaintiffs rights.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57
(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." 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 proceeding pro se, the court construes
the pleadings liberally and affords the plaintiff the benefit
of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). A pro se plaintiff will be given leave to
amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the
deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1112, 1130-31 (9th Cir.
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), a complaint shall include a "short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief." Moreover, "[e]ach averment of
a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e). If the factual elements of a cause of
action are scattered throughout the complaint but are not
organized into a "short and plain statement of the
claim, " dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a) is
proper. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d
635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Nevijel v. North Coast
Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981)
(district court may dismiss an action with prejudice due to a
litigant's failure to comply with Rule 8(a) if
meaningful, less drastic sanctions have been explored).
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a
flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice
to the defendants and must allege facts that support the
elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v.
Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.
Complaint does not satisfy Rule 8. Plaintiff does not
identify what claims he is alleging, and instead of providing
specific allegations in support of each of his claims,
Plaintiff instead has set forth a narrative of events. The
factual elements of Plaintiffs claims are scattered
throughout his narrative statement. Because Plaintiff has
failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 8, the
Complaint must be dismissed.