United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
MICHAEL H. SIMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
February 12, 2019, the Court advised Plaintiff that if he
wished to continue with this case, he must show cause why his
Complaint should not be summarily dismissed. Specifically,
the Court advised him that many of his claims surrounding
issues of search, seizure, interrogation, arrest, and his
confinement appeared to improperly challeng the legality of
his current confinement. The Court also noted that his claims
of excessive force during the course of his arrest appeared
to be the subject of another pending lawsuit (Schaefer v.
Chedester, et al., 3:18-cv-1734-SI), and that the
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") is immune
timely responded to the Order to Show Cause and asserts that:
(1) the allegations of excessive force in this case involve a
different arrest (4/6/2017) than the arrest at issue in
3:18-cv-01734-SI (10/11/2017); (2) even though he names the
EPA as a Defendant, he does not wish to sue the agency itself
and instead wishes to sue various unidentified employees; and
(3) although Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),
might bar the claim pertaining to his arrest, it does not bar
his claims regarding an allegedly warrantless search and
seizure of property because he has not been been criminally
charged in connection with the search and seizure regarding
his property. Taking all of Plaintiff's allegations as
true, he nevertheless fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A(a), the Court is required to screen
prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental
entity, officer, or employee and must dismiss a complaint if
the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and l9l5A(b). In order to state a claim,
Plaintiff's Complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter which, when accepted as true, gives rise to a
plausible inference that defendants violated plaintiff's
constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009);. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 554, 556-57 (2007) . "Threadbare recitals of
the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678.
for failure to state a claim is proper if it appears beyond
doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claims that would entitle him to relief. Ortez v.
Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 1996);
Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274
(9th Cir. 1993). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, the Court construes his pleadings liberally and
affords him the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Ortez, 88 F.3d
plaintiff wishing to bring a cause of action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 must demonstrate compliance with the
following factors: (1) a violation of rights protected by the
Constitution or created by federal statute; (2) proximately
caused; (3) by conduct of a person; (4) acting under color of
state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420
(9th Cir. 1991). A plaintiff "must plead that each . . .
defendant, through the official's own individual actions,
has violated the Constitution." Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 67 6; see also Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,
1045 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Liability under section 1983
arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the
defendant" in the alleged constitutional deprivation).
"Actions under § 1983 and those under
Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a
state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under
Bivens." Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409
(9th Cir. 1991) .
case, Plaintiff makes a variety of allegations against
unidentified individuals. Such allegations are insufficient
to state a claim where he fails to describe how a named
defendant personally participated in the deprivation of a
federal right. Plaintiff is advised that a complaint must
include a short plain statement of the facts, and describe
how each named defendant personally participated in a federal
alleges that the Washington County District Attorney
conspired to illegally enter and search Plaintiff s apartment
without a warrant in violation of Plaintiff's Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff fails to state a valid
claim for pleading purposes because prosecutors are immune
from such a suit. See Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S.
118, 123-25 (1997) (prosecutors are immune from suits for
damages for acts undertaken in judicial capacity);
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269-70 (1993)
(same). In addition, this Court must abstain from issuing
declaratory or injunctive relief that might impact a
state-court proceeding. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37, 43-45 (1971); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d
965, 973 (9th Cir. 2004).
next claims that Defendants Mutchler and Mueller violated his
rights under First Amendment when they entered information
about him in databases intended to monitor terrorists.
"The First Amendment securely protects the freedom to
make-or decline to make-one's own speech[.]"
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 191 (2003). Thus,
even if these Defendants took the action Plaintiff alleges,
the fact that law enforcement personnel entered Plaintiff s
information into a federal database did not violate
Plaintiff's First Amendment right to free speech.
also believes that Defendants Mutchler and Mueller violated
the Privacy Act by placing his information in databases
without his permission. A Privacy Act violation occurs only
where an agency improperly discloses information already in a
system of records, and does so willfully and intentionally,
resulting in a specific harm to the aggrieved party. 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a). Plaintiff's allegations do not support
such a claim. Although he also contends that entering his
information in a federal database without his permission
constitutes defamation, this claim not cognizable. See,
e.g., Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 699-701 (1976);
Franklin v. State of Oregon, 662 F.2d 1334, 1344
(9th Cir. 1981) .
alleges that "Defendant Haskins and/or Defendant
Harris" violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights
when they began badgering him after he requested an attorney,
resulting in emotional distress. With respect to any
custodial interrogation where these Defendants might not have
provided Plaintiff with proper Miranda warnings, the
"Constitution and laws of the United States do not
guarantee [Plaintiff] the right to Miranda warnings. They
only guarantee him the right to be free from
self-incrimination." Bennett v. Passic, 545
F.2d 1260, 1263 (10thCir. 1976). Where Plaintiff
claims he was not criminally charged with any crime stemming