United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Yim You United States Magistrate Judge
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.
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.
Sufficiency of Complaint and In Forma Pauperis
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).
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,
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.'”
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.
“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.
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
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
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 ...