United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
an inmate at the Washington County Jail, brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to
an order entered by the Court this date, Plaintiff was
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However,
for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Complaint is
alleges that Defendants are holding him against his will, and
that he has been incarcerated based on hearsay statements and
"no evidence to prove any reasonable doubt." By way
of remedy, Plaintiff requests the court to "make the
police officers do full investigation before they are allowed
to incriminate" Plaintiff, to require Washington County
to pay court appointed attorneys enough to ensure each person
accused gets proper and adequate counsel, and for money
damages for Plaintiffs wrongful incarceration.
district 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. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). When a plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the court must construe the
pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff the benefit of
any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). Moreover, before dismissing a pro se civil
rights complaint for failure to state a claim, the court
supplies the plaintiff with a statement of the
complaint's deficiencies. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles
Police Dept., 839. F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1988);
Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.
1987). A pro se litigant will be given leave to
amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the
deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
Karim-Panahi, S39F.2d at 623; Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated,
and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Naffe v. Frye, 789 F.3d
1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2015). "Persons" under
§ 1983 are state and local officials sued in their
individual capacities, private individuals and entities which
act under color of state law, and/or the local governmental
entity itself. Vance v. County of Santa Clara, 928
F.Supp. 993, 995-96 (N.D. Cal. 1996). The "Washington
County Jail" is managed by and/or a department of
Washington County, but it is not a "person" subject
to suit under §1983. See e.g., United States v.
Kama, 394F.3d 1236, 1239 (9th Cir. 2005)
("municipal police departments and bureaus are generally
not considered 'persons' within the meaning of
section i983"); Rodriguez v. Cnty. of Contra
Costa, 2013 WL 5946112 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2013)
("[a]lthough municipalities, such as cities and
counties, are amenable to suit under Monell,
sub-departments or bureaus of municipalities, such as the
police departments, are not generally considered
"persons" within the meaning of § 1983")
(citing Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784, 791 (9th Cir.
1995)). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot pursue any § 1983
civil rights claims against the Washington County Jail. .
extent Plaintiff intends to assert a claim against Washington
County itself, or against the City of Hillsboro, his
allegations are also insufficient. A municipal entity is
liable under § 1983 only if the plaintiff alleges his
constitutional injury was caused by employees acting pursuant
to the municipality's policy or custom. Mt. Healthy
City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280
(1977); Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Villegas v. Gilroy
Garlic Festival Ass 'n, 541 F.3d 950, 964 (9th Cir.
2008). Washington County and the City of Hillsboro may not be
held vicariously liable under § 1983 simply based on
allegedly unconstitutional acts of their employees. See
Board of Cty. Comm 'rs. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403
(1997); Monell, 436U.S. at691. Instead, the
municipalities may be held liable "when execution of a
government's policy or custom... inflicts the
injury." Monell, 436 U.S. at 694; Los
Angeles Cty., Cal. v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29, 36 (2010).
to the extent Plaintiff seeks money damages against any of
the Defendants for his alleged illegal incarceration, his
claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U S. 477
(1994). Under Heck, a § 1983 cause of action
for damages challenging the fact of incarceration is
precluded unless the conviction or sentence resulting in the
incarceration has been invalidated, expunged, or reversed.
Id. at 487. Because Plaintiff fails to allege the
legality of his current incarceration has been invalidated,
his claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint, curing
the deficiencies noted above, within 30 days of the date of
this order. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an
Amended Complaint will result in the dismissal of this
Plaintiff has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff s Motion for ...