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 granted Plaintiff leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons
set forth below, Plaintiff's 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 Defendants violated his right to due process
insofar as they: (1) refused to allow him to have his
preferred inmate as a cell mate; (2) wrote up a false
misconduct report for Disrespect II when he approached prison
staff about the issue, leading to his placement in the
Disciplinary Segregation Unit ("DSU"); and (3)
deprived him of a fair disciplinary hearing when they covered
up a false misconduct report Defendants generated so as to
prevent him from becoming cell mates with his requested
also asserts that Defendants infringed upon his right to
access the courts, that there are racial overtones to
Defendants' decisions, and that Defendants improperly
housed Plaintiff with inmates who were prepared to fight him
in an attempt to set up "gladiator cage matches."
He seeks $445, 000 in damages as a result of these alleged
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. at 1949.
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
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." "Each 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). The propriety of dismissal for failure
to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the
complaint is wholly without merit-the requirement of a
pleading to be "simple, concise, and direct,"
applies to good claims as well as bad, and is a basis for
dismissal independent of Rule 12(b) (6). McHenry v.
Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996).
case, Plaintiff's allegations are scattered throughout
his Complaint, and it is difficult to ascertain the true
nature of his several challenges, especially where similar,
conclusory allegations spill over from one claim to the next.
In addition, although Plaintiff makes allegations that there
are "racial overtones" to the Defendants decisions,
he provides no specifics on this point and alternately
appears to assert that prison officials are attempting to
protect other inmates from Plaintiff based upon his purported
history of sexually assaulting several prior cellmates. A
pleading that complies with FRCP 8(a) would help to clarify
respect to Plaintiff's due process claims, under
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) provides
that state law creates liberty interests for prisoners only
when physical restraints impose "atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life." In Sandin,
an inmate was not allowed to present witnesses at a
disciplinary hearing and was ultimately found guilty of the
charged infractions. The hearings officer sentenced the
inmate to 30 days in disciplinary segregation. The inmate
brought suit claiming that he had a protected liberty
interest in calling witnesses at his disciplinary hearing.
Supreme Court determined that the Due Process Clause only
protects a prisoner's liberty interest where he is
subject to a restraint which "imposes atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life." Id. at 484.
"Discipline by prison officials in response to a wide
range of misconduct falls within the expected perimeters of
the sentence imposed by a court of law." Id. at
485. In so holding, the Court wished to avoid "the
involvement of federal courts in the day-to-day management of
prisons" which "often squander[s] judicial
resources with little offsetting benefit to anyone."
Id. at 482.
Sandin, Plaintiff asks this court to find a due
process violation in his placement in disciplinary
segregation which resulted from the alleged deprivation of a
proper disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff fails to allege any
facts in support of his due process claims that describe the
type of atypical, significant deprivation which creates a
protected liberty interest. Similarly, the failure to give
Plaintiff his preferred ...