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.

Martinez v. State

United States District Court, D. Oregon

January 13, 2020

JESUS A. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OREGON; COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH; and DEP. C. SMITH 58608, Defendants.

          ORDER TO DISMISS

          MICHAEL W. MOSMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff, 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 Complaint.

         BACKGROUND

         In the 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 County Jail.

         Plaintiff 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 Constitution.

         In 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.

         STANDARDS

         A 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).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Procedural Deficiency

         Pursuant 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 thereof.

         II. Substantive Deficiencies

         A. Defendant "State of Oregon"

         As 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 ...


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.