United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
OPINION AND ORDER
AIKEN, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Thomas D. Easton brings this action against defendants
Kristopher G. Kyes and Oregon Department of
Transportation/Department of Motor Vehicles ("Oregon
DOT/DMV") (collectively, "state defendants")
as well as defendants Caroline M. Howell, FNP, and David J.
Shulkin (collectively, "federal
defendants") for wrongfully depriving plaintiff of his
Oregon driver's license. State defendants have moved to
dismiss all claims asserted against them. For the reasons
stated below, the Motion to Dismiss (doc. 10) is GRANTED, and
the claims against the state defendants are dismissed.
is an 82 year old veteran of the U.S. Air Force and Navy, and
received medical care at Veterans Affairs' Eugene Health
Care Center in Eugene, Oregon. On November 6, 2017, Howell,
plaintiffs primary care provider, reported plaintiff to the
Oregon DOT/DMV under Oregon's mandatory referral program
for medical impairments. Howell asserted that plaintiff
refused to take necessary blood pressure medication and was
thus a serious risk to the public while driving:
82 year old male veteran presents to clinic at risk for
sudden death due to persistent malignant hypertension (Blood
pressure greater than 200/100). Veteran has been counseled he
is at risk of sudden stroke or heart attack when driving and
at risk to other individuals on the road as long as he
Pl's Resp. to State Def Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B, pp. 4
defendants took action on this referral and suspended
plaintiffs driver's license effective November 27, 2017.
Plaintiff filed an online request for a hearing on the same
day. On December 22, 2017, plaintiff appeared before the
Oregon Office of Administrative Hearings to contest the
suspension of his license. There, plaintiff asserted that the
chronic malignant hypertension diagnosis was
"bogus" as the condition "involv[es] the
failure of three organs and requires immediate
hospitalization," symptoms that plaintiff did not
suffer. Pl's Am. Compl. ¶ 21.
February 5, 2018, plaintiff filed the present action with
this Court, naming only the federal defendants. On February
12, 2018, plaintiff amended his complaint to include the
state defendants. Plaintiff alleges claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and state law, asserting that deprivation of his
driver's license without a prior hearing violated his due
process rights. Soon after this date, plaintiff received the
Administrative Law Judge's final order directing Oregon
DOT/DMV to continue suspension of plaintiffs license.
defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss, which seeks
dismissal of all plaintiffs claims against them, on March 30,
2018. At hearing before this Court on April 30, 2018,
plaintiff represented that he intends to file a petition for
judicial review of the Administrative Law Judge's order.
The Court ordered consideration of motions to be stayed
pending a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge
Thomas Coffin. Settlement efforts were ultimately
defendants move for dismissal due to plaintiffs "failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive the motion to dismiss,
plaintiffs pleading must allege facts sufficient to
"state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atl v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545
(2007). In considering the motion, this Court accepts all of
the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Kahle
v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 2007).
the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
"does not require 'detailed factual
allegations,' it demands more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2), "A pleading that offers 'labels and
conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'"
Plaintiff's Claims Against ...