United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
A. Hernandez Chief United States District Judge
an inmate at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
("EOCI"), brings this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to an Order entered this
date, the Court granted plaintiffs Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis. However, for the reasons set
forth below, the Court dismisses plaintiffs Complaint.
Complaint alleges three claims for relief. In his first
claim, plaintiff alleges retaliation for exercising civil
rights and access to the courts. Plaintiff does not identify
the factual basis underlying the alleged retaliation, what
form of retaliation occurred, or which defendants were
personally involved in the alleged retaliation. Plaintiffs
second claim alleges that procedural due process is routinely
violated when inmates assert constitutional rights or try to
alert higher authorities of alleged institutional nepotism
problems at EOCI, and that hearings officers participate in
the alleged violations in disciplinary proceedings.
Plaintiffs third claim is difficult to ascertain. Plaintiff
alleges "abuse of power and discretion is empowered by
higher command, therefore the corruption of power and abuse
must trickle down and responsibility must be enforced up the
attachments to his Complaint, plaintiff includes a narrative
statement and other documents which appear to indicate that
the claims in the current Complaint arise from the same facts
which underlie claims alleged by plaintiff in Reyes v.
Washburn, No. 2:19-cv-01562-AC and Reyes v.
Bolles, No. 2:19-cv-01995-AC. By way of remedy here,
plaintiff seeks only money damages.
district court must dismiss an action initiated by a prisoner
seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee, if the Court determines that the action (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & l9l5A(b). When a
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must
construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff the
benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007). Moreover, before dismissing a, pro se
civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, the
court supplies the plaintiff with a statement of the
complaint's deficiencies. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles
Police Dept, 839 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1988);
Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.
1987). A pro se litigant will be given leave to
amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the
deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623; Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated,
and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Naffe v. Frye, 789 F.3d
1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2015). In order to state a §
1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts giving rise to a
reasonable inference that the named defendants were
personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation.
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
Here, none of plaintiffs claims for relief allege facts
giving rise to a reasonable inference that any of the named
defendants were personally involved in the alleged violation
of his rights; plaintiff does not allege which defendant was
personally involved in any of the actions complained of.
first claim does not allege facts supporting a claim of
retaliation. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559,
567-58 (9th Cir. 2005) (to state a viable constitutional
claim for retaliation, a plaintiff must allege that a
defendant acting under color of state law took adverse action
against him because he engaged in protected conduct, that the
adverse action was not narrowly tailored to advance
legitimate correctional goals, and that the adverse action
chilled the plaintiffs exercise of his First Amendment rights
or caused the prisoner to suffer more than minimal harm).
plaintiffs second and third claims do not allege he suffered
any injury. To the extent plaintiff claims prison officials
violate other inmates' due process rights and are not
held accountable for their actions, plaintiff appears to lack
standing to pursue such claims. See, e.g., Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (doctrine of standing
requires that claimant have suffered or will imminently
suffer actual harm); Caswell v. Calderon, 363 F.3d
832, 836 (9th Cir. 2004) (case-or-controversy requirement
means that plaintiff must have an actual or threatened injury
traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision).
to the extent plaintiffs claims in this action arise out of
the same nucleus of facts underlying the claims alleged in
Reyes v. Washburn, No. 2:19-cv-01562-AC and
Reyes v. Bolles, No. 2:19-cv-01994-AC, plaintiff has
no right to have multiple cases pending based on the
identical facts. See Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank
& Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)
(dismissing as frivolous claim arising out of the same series
of events and alleging the same facts as another pending
action); see also Boag v. McDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 n.l (1982) (§ 1915(d) gives district court broad
discretion to take judicial notice of previously filed civil
rights actions); Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421,
1425 (9th Cir. 1988), rev 'don other grounds,
112 S.Ct. 369 (1992) (in forma pauperis plaintiff
has no right to bring repetitive or duplicative claims).
on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint.
Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint, curing the
deficiencies noted above, within 30 days of the date of this
order. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an Amended