United States District Court, D. Oregon
JESUS A. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff,
STATE OF OREGON; COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH; and DEP. C. SMITH 58608, Defendants.
ORDER TO DISMISS
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an inmate currently confined at the Eastern Oregon
Correctional Institution, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs claims arise
from his prior incarceration at the Multnomah County
Inverness Jail ("MCIJ"). 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
caption of his Complaint, plaintiff identifies as defendants
the State of Oregon, the County of Multnomah, and Dep. C.
Smith. At page 3 of the Complaint, however, he identifies the
defendants as Dep. C. Smith, Deputy Romey, and the Multnomah
alleges three separate claims for relief, though the first
two claims are virtually identical. In his first two claims,
he alleges that at MCIJ on June 14, 2018, Dep. Smith refused
to allow plaintiff to attend a religious service. He alleges
that when he subsequently requested a grievance form, Dep.
Smith informed him that he had no right to attend the service
and that attendance was a privilege. He alleges that when he
informed Dep. Smith that he did have the right to attend the
service, Deputy Romey told him to shut up and return to the
dorm, and then sent plaintiff to disciplinary segregation for
disrespect or harassment. Plaintiff alleges these actions
violated his rights under Article I, Section 2 of the Oregon
plaintiff s third claim, he alleges that while he was held at
MCIJ, he was "mistreated," and was placed in
disciplinary segregation twice. He alleges that he believes
this occurred because of his race and because he tried to
file a grievance. Plaintiff does not identify any individual
officers involved these alleged occurrences. Plaintiff
alleges this violated his right not to be treated with
unnecessary vigor under Article I, Section 13 of the Oregon
Constitution. By way of remedy for both claims plaintiff
seeks 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) & 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-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623; Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
to Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
"[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties;
the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on
each side, may refer generally to other parties." As
noted, the defendants identified in the caption of plaintiff
s Complaint differ from those identified at page 3. Should
plaintiff file an Amended Complaint curing the substantive
deficiencies noted below, the Court advises plaintiff to
clearly identify all intended defendants in the caption
Defendant "State of Oregon"
noted, in the caption of his Complaint plaintiff names as a
Defendant as the "State of Oregon." "It is
well established that agencies of the state are immune under
the Eleventh Amendment from private damages or suits for
injunctive relief brought in federal court."
Savagev. Glendale Union High School, 343
F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs ...