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.

Hejazi v. Lane County Adult Corrections

United States District Court, D. Oregon

December 3, 2019

HAMID MICHAEL HEJAZI, Plaintiff,
v.
LANE COUNTY ADULT CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendant.

          ORDER TO DISMISS

          Marco A. Hernandez United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights case on September 9, 2019, and the Court recently granted him in forma pauperis status. 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).

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff seeks to bring this case as a class action on behalf of himself and 150 other prisoners, challenging the conditions of confinement at the Lane County Jail. He seeks $153, 500, 000 in damages.

         STANDARDS

         Pursuant 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 678.

         Dismissal 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 8 04, 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 at 806.

         DISCUSSION

         As an initial matter, plaintiff purports to bring this case as a class action but has not satisfied the class action prerequisites identified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. In addition, it is well settled that although a non-attorney may appear on his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. C.E. Pope Equity-Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 691 (9th Cir. 1987); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). A non-attorney has no authority to appear as an attorney for others. Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962). Accordingly, this case may not proceed as a class action.

         With respect to Plaintiff's allegations, he fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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).

         Plaintiff does not identify how any state actor personally deprived him of a federal right.[1] Instead, he generally alleges that various conditions of confinement applicable to inmates at the Lane County Jail are either unacceptable or violate rights in a generic sense without reference to dates, individuals, or specific circumstances. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

         CONCLUSION

         Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (#1) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Should Plaintiff wish to continue with this case, he must file an amended complaint within 30 days that: (1) cures the deficiencies with his prior Complaint; (2) names all defendants in its caption; (3) describes how each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of a federal right; (4) does not incorporate any prior document by reference; and (5) is on the form provided by the court. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended complaint shall result in the dismissal of this proceeding, with prejudice.

         The pending Motion to Designate Case as a Class Action (#4), and Motions to be added to Class Action (#5, ...


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.