Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Patillo v. Lincoln County Court System

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

September 9, 2019

DANIEL PATILLO, Plaintiff,
v.
LINCOLN COUNTY COURT SYSTEM, Defendant.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          Youlee Yim You United States Magistrate Judge

         Pro se plaintiff Daniel Patillo, who has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed his original Complaint on April 25, 2019, alleging violations of the “13th, 14th, 8th, 1st, 3rd or 4th” Amendments. Comp. 4. Because the complaint contained no further details regarding plaintiff's claims for relief, the court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for relief, and ordered plaintiff to file a written response by May 17, 2019. ECF #5.

         On May 17, 2019, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, as well as a “Show Cause Motion.” ECF ## 6, 7. Even when the court construes these documents liberally, however, plaintiff still has failed to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff also is in violation of LR 68-12, in that he has failed to notify the court of his new address, resulting in the return of undeliverable mail for over 60 days. See LR 68-12. Either of these deficiencies constitutes grounds to dismiss plaintiff's case without prejudice.

         I. Sufficiency of Complaint and In Forma Pauperis Statute

         A. Relevant Law

         Under the in forma pauperis statute, the court is obligated to dismiss any case in which the complaint asserts claims that are frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dismissals on the basis that the complaint is frivolous or malicious “are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

         A complaint is “frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Id. at 325. To state a claim for relief, a complaint “must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may include in the alternative or different types of relief.” FRCP 8(a). “Rule 8 does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2006) (citations omitted). “A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id.

         B. Analysis

         Plaintiff's newly-filed Amended Complaint is largely illegible. To the extent plaintiff's handwriting can be deciphered, it appears he brings suit against the “civil court . . . of Lincoln County, ” alleging (1) a failure to test the paper in his apartment to establish the presence of gas; (2) some type of request for 911 calls to determine whether they are true or false; (3) a dispute with his landlord regarding a light bill; (4) an assertion that medical records by Dr. Stevens will clear up issues regarding flooding; and (5) a reference to firefighters and an electric wire, which purportedly caused plaintiff injury. Am. Compl. 1-4, ECF #6. In his closing “Summary, ” plaintiff makes an unintelligible reference to his landlord and flooding. Id. at 4.

         In his “Show Cause Motion, ” filed on the same date, plaintiff asserts a violation of the “14th, 8th, 1st and 3rd” Amendments, and mentions defamation and false arrest. Show Cause Mot. 1, ECF #7. He contends (1) “the 911 system was created by the Newport Police” to falsely charge him; and (2) the Lincoln County “court system” did not “use all medical records” to “support the civil cause of the damages of landlord and coverup by Newport police.” Id. at 1-2.

         In an undated letter attached to his “Show Cause Motion, ” plaintiff alleges “alter ego behavior of the landlord and court system” in “unlawful imprisonment.” ECF #7-1, at 1. He complains of negligence, slander, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. He further asserts:

The landlord and court system both fail to test the flooded apartment several times as the plaintiff leave to go see him primary care doctor in Corvallis, Oregon.
The landlord and firefighter department failure to see how the landlord was (gas) war II gassing the plaintiff for undue cause.
The civil court Lincoln County and Newport Police failure to test the paper on the floor in which the gas contain by the plaintiff in proving this support was produced at civil court of Lincoln County and the judge refuse to review Dr. Usha Honeyman and the treatment or pills the plaintiff had to take and if not the plaintiff cause have die whether the light bills, bully club imprisonment, rent increase at anytime and slander [intelligible] to negligence that cause the Plaintiff to move in to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.