Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chavez v. Robinson

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division

December 10, 2018

DANIEL MIKE CHAVEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID R. ROBINSON; LISA MOORE, Defendants.

          OPINION & ORDER

          ANN AIKEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On April 16, 2018, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. ECF No. 68. Plaintiff timely filed a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 69, and this matter comes before the Court on separate Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant David R. Robinson and Defendant Lisa Moore. ECF Nos. 74, 75. The Court has determined that this case is appropriate for resolution without oral argument.[1] For the reasons set forth below, the motions are GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.

         BACKGROUND

         The convoluted history of this case was set forth at some length in this Court's Opinion and Order on the Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 68, and will not be fully reproduced here.

         As alleged in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), Plaintiff Daniel Mike Chavez ("Chavez") was convicted of two counts of Attempted Sex Abuse in the First Degree and two counts of Private Indecency following a jury trial in the Klamath County Circuit Court on March 20, 2009.[2] The state court sentenced Chavez to sixty months of probation on the first count of Attempted Sex Abuse and to eighteen months in prison, followed by sixty months of post-prison supervision ("PPS") on the second count of Attempted Sex Abuse. Chavez received a concurrent sentence of thirty days in jail for the two counts of Private Indecency.

         Chavez appealed both his conviction and his sentence, but his appeal remained pending when he completed his prison term and returned to Klamath County. Upon his release from prison, Chavez commenced his term of PPS. Defendant Lisa Moore ("Moore") was assigned as Chavez's probation officer.

         As a condition of his probation and PPS, Chavez was required to participate in a sex offender treatment program.[3] Moore directed Chavez to attend treatment sessions provided by Defendant David Robinson ("Robinson") through his company, Correctional Evaluation and Treatment, Inc. ("CET").

         Chavez began treatment with CET in June 2010. Before treatment began, Chavez was presented with a No. of "mandatory admittance" forms. These forms required, among other things, that Chavez admit to the conduct underlying his convictions. Chavez was also directed to sign a "release of information" form, which permitted Robinson to share with Moore any information disclosed by Chavez during treatment.

         Chavez was concerned that admiting to the offense conduct would prejudice his pending appeal and asked to speak to an attorney. Robinson told Chavez that the admission and the release of information were required by the program. Chavez refused to sign the documents. Robinson discharged Chavez from the program and notified Moore.

         Moore initiated PPS sanction proceedings against Chavez. Chavez was found to be in violation of the sex offender treatment requirement of his PPS and was given a jail sanction.

         In August 2010 Chavez was once again directed to attend sex offender treatment with CET. Robinson presented Chavez with the mandatory admission and release of information documents and Chavez once again refused to sign. Robinson terminated Chavez from the program and notified Moore. Moore initiated a second round of PPS sanction proceedings against Chavez. Chavez was found to be in violation of the sex offender treatment condition of his PPS and a second jail sanction was imposed against him.

         Although the SAC does not expressly discuss it, the record shows that Chavez's appellate counsel sought an order from the state court staying imposition of sex offender treatment pending resolution of Chavez's appeal on August 11, 2010. See Opinion & Order 4, n.2, ECF No. 68; Chavez v. Robinson, Ninth Circuit No. 14-35384, Dkt. No. 23. On September 1, 2010, the state court issued an order granting Chavez immunity for any statements made during sex offender treatment concerning the conduct underlying his convictions. Id.

         On March 9, 2011, Chavez filed this federal civil rights action against Moore and Robinson. ECF No. 1. On March 10, 2011, Chavez once again attended sex offender treatment with CET. See Violation and Structured Sanction Reporting Form, ECF No. 7-1. Despite the state court's grant of immunity, Chavez again refused to participate in treatment. Chavez also informed Robinson that he had filed this federal lawsuit against him. Robinson regarded the situation as an "ethical dilemma" and determined that he could "no longer provide direct therapeutic service to Mr. Chavez as he has decided to take legal action against me." Id. Robinson also reported that Chavez "has made it clear that he does not intend to cooperate with sexual offender specific treatment while attending my program." Id. In his final report, Robinson told Moore:

In closing, I will no longer allow Mr. Chavez to return to participate in this treatment program as he has filed for an appeal of his original conviction supporting his denial of sexual offense behavior; and, he has delivered upon me a certified mail document indicating his intent to file a "Civil Complaint with Damages" against me and anyone else he can. In my last meeting with Mr. Chavez, he was dismissed from the interview room as uncooperative and advised that he could discuss his termination from sexual offender treatment with you.

         Violation and Structured Sanction Reporting Form, ECF No. 7-1.

         On March 22, 2011, Moore once again initiated PPS sanction proceedings and Chavez was jailed for a third time for failure to participate in sex offender treatment.

         On February 15, 2012, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed Chavez's conviction based on the state's concession of error and remanded the case to the Klamath County Circuit Court.[4]State v. Chavez, 248 Or.App. 260 (2012). On remand, Chavez accepted a plea agreement by which he agreed to enter a plea of no contest to a single count of Attempted Sex Abuse in the First Degree. Naumes Decl. Ex. 2, ECF No. 51-1. The state agreed to dismiss the remaining counts and to recommend a sentence of time served with a requirement that Chavez register as a sex offender. Id. On February 13, 2014, the state court accepted Chavez's plea and judgment was entered accordingly. Naumes Decl. Ex. 1.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Where a plaintiff "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," the court must dismiss the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In order to state a viable claim, a plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This means a complaint must contain "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The complaint must ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.