United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an inmate at the Lane County Jail, brings this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a separate
Order, the Court 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 his special religious diet at the Lane County
Jail became "inconsistently inadequate," prompting
him to lodge complaints with Jail staff. He asserts that
because he complained, unidentified staff discontinued his
special diet and that "nursing staff" told him
there had been a crackdown on such diets. According to
Plaintiff, staff informed him that his special diet was
discontinued on the basis that he did not have a doctor's
note to support it despite the fact that no other inmate on a
special diet is expected to provide such a note. Plaintiff
asks for injunctive relief and $250, 000 in damages.
to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A(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
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).
case, despite naming individuals within the body of his
Complaint, Plaintiff does not bring suit against any of
them. Instead, he brings suit against Lane
County, its Jail, and its Sheriff's Office. In order to
establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must ordinarily
show that the deprivation of his rights occurred as a result
of an official policy or custom, see Monell v. Department
of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978), or that
the municipality ratified the unlawful conduct, see Larez
v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646-47
(9th Cir. 1991). Here, Plaintiff makes no such
allegation. Instead, he specifically asserts that he was not
treated under the appropriate policy as a de facto
punishment in retaliation for his complaints about the meals
the Jail provided him. In this respect, Plaintiff fails to
state a claim against any of the named Defendants such that
the Court dismisses the Complaint.
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. In lieu of an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
may move to voluntarily dismiss this action, without
Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a civil rights ...