United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
Michael W. Mosman United States District Judge
an inmate at the Two Rivers Correctional Institution, brings
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In a separate Order, the Court has granted Plaintiff leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons
set forth below, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
alleges that that Defendant Casillas took Plaintiff's
gold and diamond teeth grill set, apparently for mailing to
his new place of confinement, but that the Snake River
Correctional Institution did not include it with his transfer
property. Plaintiff is "sure no one got to throw it
away someone took it home with them." Amended Complaint
(#6), p. 4. Plaintiff alleges that this conduct violates the
also states that unidentified individuals erroneously placed
him in general population. This appears to relate in some way
to the mailing of his teeth grill set, but it is unclear how.
He asks for compensation of at least $100, 000.
to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A(a), the Court is required to screen
prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental
entity, officer, or employee and must dismiss a complaint if
the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and l9l5A(b). In order to state a claim,
Plaintiff's Complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter which, when accepted as true, gives rise to a
plausible inference that defendants violated plaintiff's
constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 554, 556-57 (2007). "Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
for failure to state a claim is proper if it appears beyond
doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claims that would entitle him to relief. Ortez v.
Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 1996);
Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274
(9th Cir. 1993). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, the Court construes his pleadings liberally and
affords him the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Ortez, 88 F.3d
initial matter, Plaintiff purports to bring this suit, in
part, against the Oregon Department of Corrections and the
Snake River Correctional Institution. "It is well
established that agencies of the state are immune under the
Eleventh Amendment from private damages or suits for
injunctive relief brought in federal court." Savage
v. Glendale Union High School, 343 F.3d 1036,
1040 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff therefore fails to state a
claim against these two Defendants.
s principal claim involves an allegation that Defendant
Casillas took his teeth grill set, and either stole it or
lost it. Plaintiff states both that the deprivation amounted
to negligence, and also that the deprivation was intentional.
Where an inmate alleges the deprivation of a property
interest caused by the unauthorized negligent or intentional
action of a prison official, the prisoner cannot state a
constitutional claim where the state provides an adequate
post-deprivation remedy. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494
U.S. 113, 129-131 (1990); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
517, 533 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813,
816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). This rule applies to both
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses.
Raditch v. United States, 929 F.2d 478, 481 (9th
Cir. 1991). Because Oregon provides an adequate
post-deprivation remedy in the form of the Oregon Tort Claims
Act, O.R.S. 30.260 et seq., Plaintiff fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
also appears to assert that he was improperly classified for
re-entry into the general population at his prison. He does
not identify how this classification violates any federal
right, but assuming this is a continuation of Plaintiff's
allegations that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment
rights, he fails to state a claim. Even in the context of
inmates placed in a maximum custody unit without a
sufficient basis to do so, the Ninth Circuit concluded that
such a "misclassification does not itself inflict pain
within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment."
Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1256 (9th Cir.
1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Plaintiff's basic
allegation that his classification for housing in general
population was in error in violation of the Eighth Amendment
fails to state a claim. Accordingly, the Court summarily
dismisses Plaintiff s Complaint.
the issues in this case are largely intertwined with, or
duplicative of, issues in Plaintiff s other case,
Camirand v. Oregon the Union, et al.,
2:18-cv-00787-MO, the Court does not allow leave to amend in
this case, but does allow leave to amend in 2:18-cv-00787-MO
where Plaintiff's allegations make the nature of his