United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge
an inmate at the Two Rivers Correctional Institution
("TRCI"), brings this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to an Order entered by
this date, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed.
caption of his Complaint, Plaintiff identifies only Defendant
Steve Franke. In the section of his Complaint titled
"Parties, " however, Plaintiff identifies as
additional Defendants John Myrick, S. Martin, R. Shaffer, M.
Wilson, and L. Brown.
Complaint alleges two claims for relief. In the first claim,
Plaintiff alleges that he requested an indigent envelope to
mail a supplemental pro se brief to his attorney for
filing with the Oregon Court of Appeals. Plaintiff alleges
law library coordinators S. Martin and R. Shaffer refused to
give Plaintiff an envelope, stating that indigent envelopes
were not allowed for general correspondence with attorneys.
Plaintiff grieved the incident, and was ultimately found to
be correct in his assertion that he should have received the
indigent envelope to mail his supplemental pro se
brief to his attorney. Plaintiff alleges that his attorney
obtained an extension of time, and that he was ultimately
successful in filing his brief. Plaintiff alleges he has also
been denied indigent envelopes for mail addressed to the
attorney general, but Plaintiff does not describe the type of
mail he was prevented from sending.
Plaintiffs second claim, he alleges that the law library and
inmate legal assistants at TRCI are insufficient. Plaintiff
also complains that he cannot access old legal documents
stored on a thumb drive, and must use a typewriter to prepare
new legal documents. Plaintiff does not allege he has
suffered any injury as a result of the alleged
of remedy, Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive
relief requiring that inmates be allowed indigent envelopes
to correspond with their attorneys, and requiring that
TRCI's law library and inmate legal assistant program be
district court must dismiss an action initiated by a
plaintiff proceeding in forma pauper is 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.
Ashcroftv. 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). Apro 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), "[t]he title
of a complaint must name all the parties." As to all
other pleadings, the title, "after naming the first
party on each side, may refer generally to other
parties." Id. As noted, Plaintiff does not name
all of the Defendants in the title of his Complaint. As such,
Plaintiffs Complaint does not comply with Rule 10.