United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
A. HERNANDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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
Court revokes Plaintiffs in forma pauper is status
because an appeal would not be taken in good ...