United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an inmate at the Multnomah County Inverness Jail, 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
caption of his Complaint, plaintiff identifies the Defendant
as "State of Oregon Circuit Court." At pages 2-3
however, he identifies the following Defendants: Multnomah
County Circuit Court, State of Oregon Attorney General,
Multnomah County District Attorney, and C.A.R.E.S. Northwest.
The substance of plaintiff s Complaint is not a model of
clarity. He alleges violation of his rights under the Sixth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Oregon state
law. Plaintiff alleges he suffered "injury to reputation
and loss of property" and "mental health neglected,
severe PTSD and depression." By way of relief, plaintiff
asks the Court to "order default Judgment on plaintiffs
behalf from Circuit Court .... Lost wages and time held in
jail being denied appropriate due process and mental/physical
medical treatment the sum of $30, 000[.]" Attached to
plaintiffs Complaint are two narrative statements which
appear to allege prosecutorial and judicial misconduct by the
Multnomah County District Attorney and a Multnomah County
Judge in connection with a criminal prosecution against
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) & 1915A(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). Apro 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-PanahU 839 F.2d at 623; Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
to Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief." "Each allegation must be simple, concise
and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). If the factual
elements of a cause of action are scattered throughout the
complaint but are not organized into a "short and plain
statement of the claim," dismissal for failure to
satisfy Rule 8(a) is proper. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr.
Co.. 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also
Neviiel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co.. 651 F.2d 671, 674
(9th Cir. 1981) (district court may dismiss an action with
prejudice due to a litigant's failure to comply with Rule
8(a) if meaningful, less drastic sanctions have been
explored); cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(1) ("each averment of a
pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct").
Complaint does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule
8. Plaintiffs narrative statements frustrate any attempt to
ascertain his individual claims against the named defendants.
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. See West v.
Atkins. 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). A plaintiff must also
allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of a
particular defendant's conduct and an affirmative link
between the injury and the violation of his rights. See
Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs.. 436 U.S. 658
(1978); Rizzo v. Goode. 423 U.S. 362, 371-72,
Claims Barred by Heck v. Humphrey
appears to allege misconduct in the prosecution of a criminal
case against him. It is not clear from the Complaint,