United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
COREY L. BRACKEN, Plaintiff,
FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, CITY OF JASPER FLORIDA, JASPER POLICE DEPARTMENT, AXON CORPORATION, LOVES TRAVEL CENTERS, Defendants.
D.CLARKE, UNITED STSTES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Corey L. Bracken seeks to proceed in forma pauperis
("IFP") in this action. For the reasons stated
below, Plaintiffs Complaint (#1) is dismissed without
prejudice and with leave to refile a First Amended Complaint
within thirty days of this ruling. Plaintiffs IFP application
(#2) is held in abeyance and will be considered when the
amended complaint is filed. Plaintiffs request for Pro Bono
Counsel is denied. Plaintiffs request that this case be
sealed is denied.
all parties instituting any civil action in United States
District Court must pay a statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a). However, the federal IFP statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1), provides indigent litigants an opportunity
for meaningful access to the federal courts despite their
inability to pay the costs and fees associated with that
access. To authorize a litigant to proceed IFP, a court must
make two determinations. First, a court must determine
whether the litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing
the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Second, it must
assess whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
regard to the second of these determinations, district courts
have the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen
complaints even before the service of the complaint on the
defendants and must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state
a claim. Courts apply the same standard under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) as when addressing a motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison
v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To
survive a motion to dismiss under the federal pleading
standards, the complaint must include a short and plain
statement of the claim and "contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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. The plausibility standard ... asks for more than a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully." Id. The Court is not required to
accept legal conclusions, unsupported by alleged facts, as
pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings
by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-521 (1972). That is, the court should construe pleadings
by pro se plaintiffs liberally and afford the plaintiffs the
benefits of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los
Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.
1988) (citation omitted). Additionally, a pro se litigant is
entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and
the opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's
deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Id.
Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed for lack of personal
assuming the allegations in the Complaint state a plausible
claim for relief, the Complaint does not adequately state the
basis for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over
the defendants. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he
must cure this deficiency to avoid dismissal, as discussed
as here, there is no federal statute governing personal
jurisdiction, the law of the state in which the Court sits
applies. CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc.,
653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2011); Panavision Ml, L.P.
v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir.1998).
Oregon's long arm statute, Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure
("ORCP") 4, extends personal jurisdiction to the
extent permitted by federal due process. Gray & Co.
v. Firstenberg Mach. Co., 913 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir.
1990); Tech Heads, Inc. v. Desktop Serv. Ctr., Inc.,
105 F.Supp.2d 1142, 1144 (D. Or. 2000).
due process requires that a nonresident defendant have
"certain minimum contacts" with the forum state of
such a nature that the exercise of personal jurisdiction
"does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice.'" International Shoe
Co. v. State of Washington, Office of Unemployment
Compensation and Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)
(quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463
(1940)). This constitutional test may be satisfied by showing
that (1) the defendant has "substantial" or
"continuous and systematic" contacts with the forum
state-i.e. "general jurisdiction," or (2) there is
a strong relationship between the defendant's forum
contacts and the cause of action-i.e. "specific
jurisdiction." Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth
Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 839 (9th Cir.1986). See
also Ziegler v. Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 473
order for the court to exercise specific jurisdiction, the
lawsuit "must arise out of or relate to the
defendant's contacts with the forum."
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California,
San Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780, 198 L.Ed.2d
395 (2017) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
471 U.S. 462, 472-473 (1985); Helicopteros Nacionales de
Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). In
other words, there must be "an affiliation between the
forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an]
activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State
and is therefore subject to the State's regulation."
Goodyear, 564 U.S., at 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted). For this reason,
"specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of
issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy
that establishes jurisdiction." Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
case, Plaintiff identifies the defendants as Florida League
of Cities, the City of Jasper in Florida, the City of Jasper
Police Department, Axon Corporation, and Loves Travel Center.
Plaintiff does not indicate where the corporate defendants
are incorporated or where their principal places of business
are located, but it seems that all defendants are
"non-residents" of Oregon and therefore the Court
lacks general jurisdiction over the defendants. Thus,
Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Court has specific
personal jurisdiction by showing that there is a strong
relationship between his claims and the defendants'
contacts with the State of Oregon.
claims that he was wrongfully arrested, detained, assaulted,
and wrongfully tased on October 19, 2018. He does not allege
that any of the facts in the Complaint took place in Oregon
or explain why this case should be brought in Oregon.
Plaintiff does not state where the allegedly wrongful arrest
took place, but based on statements in the complaint about
the actions of law enforcement officials employed in the
state of Florida it seems that the events complained of took
place in Florida. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to allege
sufficient facts for the Court to exercise personal
jurisdiction over the defendants. If he is ...