United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
MICHAEL M. MOSMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an inmate at the Multnomah County Inverness Jail, appears to
bring this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In a separate Order, the Court has 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 that she is in an abusive relationship with her
husband, and asks the Court to award her $30, 000 in damages,
a legal divorce, and mental and medical coverage from the
trauma she has suffered.
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 1915A(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
not entirely clear what Plaintiff's basis for
jurisdiction is, but she uses the Court's prisoner civil
rights complaint form that is reserved for 42 U.S.C. §
1983 actions and indicates in her cover page that this is a
federal question case. A 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 676; 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).
is not a state actor, thus Plaintiff fails to state a claim.
Even if this were not the case, under the domestic relations
exception, federal courts abstain from exercising
jurisdiction in domestic relations cases when the core issue
involves alimony, divorce, or a child custody decree. See
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 704-705 (1992)/
see also Coates v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th
Cir. 1987). This is true even where a plaintiff alleges
violations of the federal Constitution. See District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486
(1983). "Long ago [the Supreme Court] observed that
'[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband
and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States
and not to the laws of the United States." Elk Grove
Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12, (2 004)
(quoting In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-594
(1890)). For these reasons, the Complaint is dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Complaint (#1) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
Because it is clear that Plaintiff cannot cure the
deficiencies with her Complaint through amendment, the
dismissal is without leave to amend, and with prejudice. The
pending Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (#6) is
for the reasons set forth above, this Court certifies that
any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
See 28 U.S.C. ...