United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ORDER TO
Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge.
a former inmate of the Washington County Jail, brings this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (ECF No. 1). However, for the reasons set forth
below, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint.
caption of his Complaint, Plaintiff names one Defendant,
"Naphcare at Washington County Jail." At page 3 of
the Complaint, however, Plaintiff identifies Nurse Ericka and
Medical Coordinator Ryan, both "at Naphcare Washington
County Jail." Plaintiff alleges denial of medical care
in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and retaliation in.
violation of the First Amendment.
alleges that on the morning of January 26, 2019, a nurse at
the Jail gave Plaintiff ari incorrect medication. Plaintiff
alleges that he suffered side effects of anxiety, racing
heart, and delusions throughout the day, and that when he
sought a medical examination at the end of the day, the nurse
refused. Plaintiff alleges the following morning he received
his correct medication, and that when he asked what he had
received the prior day the same nurse dismissed his concerns.
alleges that he filed a grievance with the medical
coordinator, and that after he did so Naphcare staff members
retaliated against him by thereafter singling him out and
asking him to properly identify himself before dispensing
medications to him.
of remedy, Plaintiff seeks money damages. The Court notes
that Plaintiff did not sign his Complaint.
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. § 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., 83 9 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, 839 F.2d at 623; Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
"[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties;
the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on
each side, may refer generally to other parties." As
noted, the title of Plaintiff s Complaint does not name all
of the Defendants listed at page 3 of the Complaint.
to Rule 11 (a), every pleading "must be signed... by a
party personally if the party is unrepresented."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a). "The court must strike an unsigned
paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being
called to the . . . party's attention." Id.