United States District Court, D. Oregon
Crockett, Pro Se Plaintiff.
C. Bailey, City of Portland, City Attorney's Office,
Attorney for Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ, United States District Judge.
Chuck Crockett brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Defendants City of Portland and Portland Police,
alleging violations of his Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights, as well as tort claims arising from
Defendants' alleged violation of state and federal laws.
Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Plaintiff moves to remand to
state court and for sanctions. The Court denies
Plaintiff's motion to remand and motion for sanctions and
grants Defendants' motion to dismiss in part. Plaintiff
is granted leave to amend his First Amended Complaint.
court takes the facts from Plaintiff's Tort Claim
(“first amended complaint” or “FAC”).
On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff Chuck Crockett entered the North
Portland Police Precinct to report a hate crime. First Am.
Compl. 1, ECF 10. Plaintiff alleges that he asked
the desk clerk to get an officer to take his report.
Id. The desk clerk told Plaintiff that no officers
were available to take his report and instructed him to call
the non-emergency line to report the crime. Id.
Plaintiff told the desk clerk that he could see that two
officers behind the clerk were doing nothing and asked that
one of them take his report. Id. The clerk told
Plaintiff a second time that no officers were available to
take his report and told him to call the non-emergency line.
Id. Plaintiff began to argue with the clerk about
the clerk's refusal to summon an officer to take his
report. Id. Plaintiff told the clerk that a
Caucasian male had been driving around in his car trying to
assault African Americans and that the man posed an immediate
threat to the public. Id. According to Plaintiff,
the clerk denied that the situation described by Plaintiff
was an emergency and again instructed Plaintiff to call the
non-emergency line to report the crime. Id.
asserts that during his argument with the clerk, several
Portland Police officers passed by, and the clerk did not ask
any of them to take Plaintiff's report. Id. at
2. Plaintiff tried to stop one of the officers, who refused
to take his report. Id. Plaintiff told the officer
that the “encounter was [b]ullshit and racist.”
Id. Plaintiff went outside and began to tell the
officers who were outside the precinct that he was trying to
report a hate crime and was being ignored. Id. The
officers ignored him. Id. Plaintiff began to yell at
officers to get their attention, and the officers continued
to ignore him. Id. Eventually, Plaintiff found an
African American officer who agreed to take his report.
Id. According to Plaintiff, the officer who took his
report and the sergeant on shift told Plaintiff that
“the incident should have never taken place.”
Id. Plaintiff claims Portland Police did not
properly investigate the man he reported to have committed
the hate crime. Id. at 4.
alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and perpetuated a
pattern of racism in violation of Title III and VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id. at 2. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against because
of his race when Caucasian police officers refused to take
his report of the hate crime and alleges that he has been
subjected to involuntary servitude because he is forced to
pay taxes for government services that oppress him.
Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff also alleges an act of
domestic terrorism, id. at 3, and alleges that under
Oregon Revised Statute (“O.R.S.”) § 199.410,
a service agency for African Americans must be established.
Id. at 4.
Removal and Remand
federal district court has original jurisdiction over all
civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
When a federal district court has original jurisdiction over
a civil case, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over
all other claims that arise from the same case or
controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). If a district court
has original jurisdiction over a civil case, the defendant
may remove it from state court to the district court for the
district and division that encompasses the place where the
state court action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A
defendant must remove an action from a state court to a
federal district court within thirty days of service or
receipt by the defendant of a copy of the initial pleading
setting out the plaintiff's claims for relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446. A plaintiff must file a motion to remand the
case on any basis other than lack of subject matter
jurisdiction within thirty days of filing of the notice of
removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A plaintiff can move to
remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction any time
before final judgment. Id.
Motion to Dismiss
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted
only when there is no cognizable legal theory to support the
claim or when the complaint lacks sufficient factual
allegations to state a facially plausible claim for relief.
Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622
F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). In evaluating the
sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations, the
court must accept all material facts alleged in the complaint
as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d
1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012). However, the court need not
accept conclusory allegations as truthful. Holden v.
Hagopian, 978 F.2d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 1992).
Court will grant a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff alleges the
“grounds” of his “entitlement to
relief” with nothing “more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action[.]” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level, . . . on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact).” Id. (citations and footnote omitted).
survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint “must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face[, ]”
meaning “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal quotation omitted). Additionally, “only a
complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a
motion to dismiss.” Id. The complaint must
contain “well-pleaded facts” which “permit
the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct.” Id. at 679. The court must
liberally construe a pro se plaintiff's
pleadings. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). In doing so, the court gives the
plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and must give the
plaintiff leave to amend the pleadings “unless it is
absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could
not be cured by amendment.” Broughton v. Cutter
Labs, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980).
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and ...