United States District Court, D. Oregon, Pendleton Division
OPINION AND ORDER
PATRICIA SULLIVAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Taylor brings this federal- and state-law civil rights action
concerning alleged injuries he sustained while an inmate at
the Two Rivers Correctional Institution (“TRCI”)
in Umatilla, Oregon. Compl. (Docket No. 1). Defendants are
officers and employees of the Oregon Department of
Corrections (“ODOC”) and ODOC. Defendants have
moved to dismiss. (Docket No. 9). Plaintiff opposes. (Docket
No. 13). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS
defendants' Motion, in part with leave to amend, and in
part without leave to amend.
about September 1, 2015, an Oregon state court sentenced
plaintiff to ODOC custody; he would eventually be
incarcerated at TRCI. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 10. Plaintiff is
no longer incarcerated at TRCI. Id. Defendant T.
Ridley was the Assistant Superintendent of Security at TRCI
at the times relevant to the Complaint. Id. ¶
6. Defendant Gregory Jones was the High Risk Placement
Officer for ODOC. Id. ¶ 7. The other individual
defendants were, at all relevant times, TRCI staff personnel.
Id. ¶ 8.
September 1, 2015, Willamette Week, a weekly
newspaper from Portland, Oregon, published an article titled
“Rat Tale, ” which identified plaintiff as a
“rat” or “snitch.” Id.
¶ 11. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Jones “knew
or should have known that Mr. Taylor had been publicly
identified as a ‘rat' or a ‘snitch' and
was therefore at high risk of being assaulted.”
Id. ¶ 12. Jones “communicated to all
other defendants, or should have communicated to all other
defendants, that Mr. Taylor had been publicly identified as a
‘rat' or a ‘snitch' and was therefore at
high risk of being assaulted.” Id. ¶ 13.
February 21, 2016, TRCI inmate Joe Robinson “during a
mealtime slit Mr. Taylor's neck causing life-threatening
injuries.” Id. ¶ 15. The assault was
“foreseeable.” Id. ¶ 1.
Complaint brings three causes of action:
(1) Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violations for the
Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment, for “failure to provide adequate protection
to Mr. Taylor from assault by other inmates, ” Compl.
(2) For violations of the Oregon State Constitution's
prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, Art. I, Sec. 16,
for “failure to provide adequate protection to Mr.
Taylor from assault by other inmates, ” Compl.
¶¶ 18-19; and
(3) “Premises liability” for “negligent
failure to protect Mr. Taylor on premises, ”
id. ¶¶ 20-23.
have moved to dismiss. (Docket No. 9). Plaintiff opposes, but
provides very little substantive argument or analysis.
(Docket No. 13). Instead, plaintiff concludes, “[h]is
position is that he has adequately stated each claim for
relief.” Id., at 2. He repeats a paragraph
from the Complaint, attaching a copy of the Willamette
Week article. Id. Despite this lack of substance in
plaintiff's Opposition, the Court analyzes the merits of
well-pleaded complaint requires only “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A claimant is not
required to detail all factual allegations; however, the
complaint must provide “more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted).
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Id. While
the Court must assume that all facts alleged in a complaint
are true and view them in a light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, it need not accept as true any legal
conclusion set forth in the complaint. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a plausible
claim for relief, the complaint “must contain
sufficient allegations of underlying facts” to support
its legal conclusions. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,
1216 (9th Cir. 2011). “In sum, for a complaint to
survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory
‘factual content,' and reasonable inferences from
that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim
entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S.
Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “Where a complaint
pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent' with a
defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 557).
Section 1983 Eight Amendment Claim
moving to dismiss plaintiff's § 1983 claim,
defendants argue that plaintiff fails to plead any specific
facts about any individual ...