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.

Olson v. Allen

United States District Court, D. Oregon

March 15, 2019

JACOB RYAN OLSON, Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK ALLEN in his capacity as Acting Director of the Oregon Health Authority, and OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY an agency of the State of Oregon, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Stacie F. Beckerman United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiff Jacob Ryan Olson (“Olson”), a self-represented litigant, brings this case against Oregon Health Authority (“OHA”) Director Patrick Allen (“Allen”), and the OHA (together, “Defendants”), alleging claims for disability discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, disability discrimination in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403, and breach of contract. (ECF No. 1.) Olson seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. (Compl. ¶ 2.)

         Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of Olson's claims. (ECF No. 26.) The Court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the following reasons, the Court grants in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

         BACKGROUND

         Olson alleges that on or about January 22, 2016, he was committed to Portland Adventist Hospital in Portland, Oregon, following civil commitment proceedings in Multnomah County Circuit Court. (Compl. ¶ 5.)

         On March 14, 2016, Olson was transferred to the Oregon State Hospital (“OSH”) in Salem, Oregon. (Compl. ¶ 5.) On April 4, 2016, several OSH staff injured his ribs and failed to provide medical care for his injuries. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Throughout Olson's time at OSH, hospital staff forced Olson “to ingest psychotropic medications” against his will. (Compl. ¶ 10.)

         OSH kept Olson “confined virtually every day, in a barren cell-like room” that was “devoid of environmental stimulation, recreation . . ., and normal social interaction.” (Compl. ¶ 12.) As a result of Olson's constant confinement, Olson's physical and psychological health deteriorated. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15.) Olson was released from OSH's care and custody on July 14, 2017. (Compl. ¶ 5.)

         ANALYSIS

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). On a motion for summary judgment, courts must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Porter v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The court does not assess the credibility of witnesses, weigh evidence, or determine the truth of matters in dispute. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.'” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted). Although courts must construe liberally the pleadings of self-represented litigants, “an ordinary pro se litigant, like other litigants, must comply strictly with the summary judgment rules.” Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Title II of the ADA

         Defendants seek summary judgment on Olson's Title II claim because (1) Olson fails to state a valid claim for relief; and (2) the Eleventh Amendment bars Olson's claim. (Defs.' Mem. at 2.) The Court must first address whether the Eleventh Amendment bars Olson's claim because Ninth Circuit “precedent dictates that [courts] resolve an Eleventh Amendment immunity claim before reaching the merits[.]” Coal. to Def. Affirmative Action v. Brown, 674 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing In re Jackson, 184 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Norita v. N. Mariana Islands, 331 F.3d 690, 692 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing a split among the circuit courts and concluding that courts in the Ninth Circuit may not bypass an Eleventh Amendment issue in favor of deciding the case on the merits) (citing Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 934 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)).

         1. Eleventh ...


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.