Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tilahun v. Peters

United States District Court, D. Oregon

April 2, 2018

SHUA TILAHUN, Plaintiff,
v.
COLLETTE PETERS; BRIAN BELLAQUE; MIKE GOWER; S. KLEIER; H. BRANCH; GARRETT LANEY; and BRANDON KELLY, Defendants.

          ORDER TO DISMISS

          MICHAEL H. SIMON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff, an inmate at the Oregon State Penitentiary, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the court dismisses Plaintiffs complaint.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. By way of supporting facts, Plaintiff alleges he was placed on "close supervision status" as punishment for refusing to accept a cell-mate. Plaintiff does not allege the consequences of "close supervision status." Plaintiff also does not allege personal involvement by any of the named Defendants in the decision to place him on "close supervision status."

         STANDARDS

         Where a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis files an action seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that:

(B) 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) and 1915A(b).

         In order to state a claim, a plaintiffs complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations which, when accepted as true, give rise to a plausible inference that the defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 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 Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

         As the Ninth Circuit has instructed however, courts must "continue to construe pro se filings liberally." Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). A "complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] 'must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).

         Before dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, this Court supplies the plaintiff with a statement of the complaint's deficiencies. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept, 839 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1988); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). A pro se litigant will be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.