United States District Court, D. Oregon
RICHARD B. PAIGE, Plaintiff,
ANDIE CORTEZ, Defendant.
ORDER TO DISMISS
Michael W. Mosman, United States District Judge.
an individual incarcerated in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, brings
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In a separate Order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons
set forth below, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) .
alleges that his wife's current and former parole
officers prevented him from using his medical marijuana,
forced him out of his home and away from his wife, and put
his wife and him in jail for "unjust reasons." He
asks that the Court remove the "illegal `no-contact'
order" that separates him from his wife, award $25, 000
for each year the parole officers violated their rights, and
award an additional $25, 000 for each year of pain and
suffering the couple endured during the last 11 years.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(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
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
initial matter, the only named Defendant in the caption of
Plaintiff's Complaint is Andie Cortez, whom Plaintiff
describes as his wife's former parole officer. To the
extent Plaintiff wishes to bring suit against his wife's
other parole officers as he indicates elsewhere in his
Complaint, he has not done so because he omits these
individuals from the caption of his pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P.
10(a). However, as discussed below, even if Plaintiff were to
cure this deficiency, he would still not be entitled to
proceed with this lawsuit.
mainly seeks money damages for Defendant's imposition of
various post-prison supervision conditions and her
administration of those conditions over the course of the
last 11 years. To the extent such claims are timely,
Defendant Cortez is absolutely immune to a suit for damages.
Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 839-40 (9th Cir.
2013); Swift v. California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1189 (9th
Plaintiff also appears to seek injunctive relief under the
theory that his wife's post-prison supervision conditions
burden his ability to use medical marijuana and reside in his
home due to a no-contact order, Plaintiff is currently
incarcerated in Arkansas such that he is not affected by
either of these conditions. Indeed, the Court takes judicial
notice of the fact that Plaintiff began serving a 132-month
prison sentence within the Arkansas Department of Correction
on January 30, 2012 for Battery in the First Degree (Habitual
Offender), and he remains incarcerated pursuant to that
judgment to this day. Because the conditions of which Petitioner
complains do not currently affect him, he has no standing to
challenge them. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
although Plaintiff also appears to challenge his wife's
post-prison supervision conditions on her behalf as well as
his own, a non-attorney may not appear on behalf of others.
C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d
696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987); Storseth v. Spellman, 654
F.2d 1349, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981) . For all of these reasons,
the Court summarily dismisses the Complaint.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Complaint (#1) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
Because Plaintiff cannot cure all of the deficiencies
identified above through amendment, the dismissal is without
leave to amend. ...