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.

Cammon v. Clackamas County

United States District Court, D. Oregon

February 6, 2019

JONATHAN CAMMON, Plaintiff,
v.
CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Defendant.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          MARCO A. HERNANDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, formerly an inmate at the Clackamas County Jail, brings this civil rights action against Clackamas County. On November 13, 2018, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 2) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a) & (b) because it did not contain separate claims for relief and did "not clarify who Plaintiff is suing and for what wrongs." Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 5) at 2. Additionally, this Court advised Plaintiff of the necessary allegations to state a claim against a municipality and cautioned him that he cannot (1) challenge the legality of his conviction in the instant proceeding; or (2) bring a cause of action that implicates the legality of his conviction unless it has been reversed or otherwise invalidated. Id. at 2-3. On December 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) that suffers from the same deficiencies. Accordingly, this Court dismisses Plaintiffs Amended Complaint.

         STANDARDS

         This Court must dismiss an action initiated by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee, if the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).

         In order to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege facts which, when accepted as true, give rise to a plausible inference that the defendants violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 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; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). "A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and therefore this Court construes the pleadings liberally and affords Plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

         DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff alleges that Clackamas County violated his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights during his arrest and trial, and while he was confined at the Clackamas County Jail. Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied his prescribed medications and he lists a multitude of additional constitutional violations in an attachment to his Amended Complaint. See Pl.'s Am. Compl. at 6 & Attach. 1 at 1-3.

         As this Court previously advised Plaintiff, in order to state a claim against a municipality, he must "allege facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that (1) the county had a policy, custom, or widespread practice that was the moving force behind the violation of his constitutional rights; (2) the county failed to properly train its officers and the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs rights; or (3) the individual who violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights had final policy-making authority or ratified a subordinate's unconstitutional decision or action and the basis for it."Order of Dismissalat3 (citing Rodriguez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d776, 802-03 (9th Cir. 2018)). Plaintiff again has failed to allege facts to support a reasonable inference that Defendant had a policy, custom, or practice that was the moving force behind the violation of his constitutional rights, that Defendant failed to train its officers and that failure amounts to deliberate indifference, or that a person with final policy-making authority ratified the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim.

         CONCLUSION

         The Court dismisses Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) for failure to state a claim. Because this Court previously advised Plaintiff of the facts he must allege to state a claim against Defendant, he shall not be given leave to amend. The dismissal is without prejudice to the extent that his claims can be construed as challenging the legality of his underlying conviction or implicate the legality of his conviction.

         This Court revokes Plaintiffs in forma pauper is status because an appeal would not be taken in good ...


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.