United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
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 Complaint is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6) .
alleges that between February 2016 and July 2018, he: (1) was
denied medication while housed at the Oregon State
Penitentiary; and (2) became ill from the food and water at
the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility and Snake River
Correctional Institution. Plaintiff's Complaint does not
identify contain a prayer for relief.
is appropriate if Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff's Complaint should not be dismissed for failure
to state a claim, however, unless it appears beyond doubt
that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim which would entitle him to relief. Terracom v.
Valley Nat'l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1995).
for failure to state a claim is a ruling on a question of
law. Parks School of Business, Inc., v. Symington,
51 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1995). Review is limited to the
contents of the Complaint and its Exhibits. Id. at
1484. Allegations of fact in the Complaint must be taken as
true and construed in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Id. From the facts alleged, the
court also must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
the Plaintiff. Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828
F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). But conclusory allegations,
without more, are insufficient to state a claim.
McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810
(9th Cir. 1988).
plaintiff wishing to bring a cause of action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 must demonstrate compliance with the
following factors: (1) a violation of rights protected by the
Constitution or created by federal statute; (2) proximately
caused; (3) by conduct of a person; (4) acting under color of
state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420
(9th Cir. 1991). A plaintiff "must plead that each . . .
defendant, through the official's own individual actions,
has violated the Constitution." Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009); see also Taylor v.
List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)
("Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a
showing of personal participation by the defendant" in
the alleged constitutional deprivation).
case, Plaintiff names two Defendants, the Hillsboro Municipal
Court and Washington County. However, these two Defendants
have nothing to do with the incidents that allegedly occurred
within the three Oregon state prisons Plaintiff identifies in
his Complaint. In addition, Plaintiff makes no claims giving
rise to municipal liability. See Monell v. Department of
Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978); Larez v.
City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646-47
(9th Cir. 1991).
only does Plaintiff fail to state a claim against either
named Defendant, but he also fails to: (1) name as a
defendant any state actor who was personally responsible for
the deprivations he describes; and (2) identify how the
conduct at issue violates federal law. For all of these
reasons, the Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Any amended complaint must: (1) cure the deficiencies with
the original Complaint; (2) name all defendants in its
caption; (3) describe how each named defendant personally
participated in the deprivation of a federal right; (4) not
incorporate any prior document by reference; and (5) be on
the form provided by the court.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Complaint (#1) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
Should Plaintiff wish to continue with this case, he must
file an amended complaint that complies with the terms of
this Order. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an