Lane v. Chapman et al

Filing 43

OPINION AND ORDER: Because Plaintiff's Complaint presents claims that ask the Court to interfere with ongoing state court proceedings or to prematurely resolve issues that will be impacted by those proceedings, Defendants' Motion, ECF No. #25 , is GRANTED. Signed on 3/12/2025 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 3/12/2025.) (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
RICHARD EDWARD LANE,

Case No. 1:25-cv-00093-MC

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
OFFICER CARSON CHAPMAN,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint by pro se Plaintiff
Richard Edward Lane. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.
STANDARD
To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter that “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when the factual allegations
allow the Court to infer the defendant’s liability based on the alleged conduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true
all allegations of material fact and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the non-

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

movant. Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Tr., 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 2000). But
the Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights when he was arrested following a traffic
stop on September 15, 2024. Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 1. After being pulled over for issues related
to his license plates, Plaintiff alleges that the Medford police began “to manufacture a false
investigation for weed DUI” and illegally searched his vehicle. Id. at 9, 16. Plaintiff alleges that
Officer Chapman lied on her police report and that more than three officers conspired to deprive
Plaintiff of his rights. Id. at 11. Plaintiff’s claims are “based on oppression, gross negligence and
breach of contract” and Plaintiff notes that he does “NOT consent to be governed by a tyrannical
state government.” Id. at 19. As relief, Plaintiff asks the Court for a Temporary Restraining Order
(“TRO”), punitive damages, and damages to compensate him for the costs he paid as a result of
these events. Id.
Defendants1 move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim as barred by various abstention doctrines.
Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 25. Defendants note that Plaintiff is currently cited as a criminal
defendant in State of Oregon v. Richard Edward Lane, MPD Case No. 24-15100, for five charges
relating to these events. Id. at 2–3. Defendants are correct that those abstention doctrines bar
Plaintiff’s claims at this time. This Court may not interfere with ongoing state court criminal
proceedings and may not hear cases that may be mooted by those proceedings. Heck v. Humphrey,

1
Plaintiff names the following Defendants: Officer Carson Chapman, Officer Alexis Manzanarez, Officer Time
Gildea, Corporal Cody Walker, Corporal Logal Boyd, Senior Assistant City Attorney Garrett M. Ramsey, and the
Medford Police Department. Pl.’s Compl. 6–7. The Court notes that the Medford Police Department is a department
of the City of Medford and not a separate entity capable of being sued. The record reflects that Defendant Chapman
has not yet been served. Those issues are preserved and not waived by Defendants’ Motion.

2 – OPINION AND ORDER

512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994) (“We hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a
federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing
that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under
§ 1983.”); Colo. River Water Conserv. Dist. v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800 (1976) (abstention is appropriate
where a federal constitutional issue “might be mooted or presented in a different posture by a state
court determination of pertinent state law”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (absent unusual circumstances, federal courts may not
enjoin state court proceedings).
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff’s Complaint presents claims that ask the Court to interfere with ongoing
state court proceedings or to prematurely resolve issues that will be impacted by those proceedings,
Defendants’ Motion, ECF No. 25, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
12th day of March, 2025.
DATED this _____
/s/Michael McShane
____________________________
Michael McShane
United States District Judge

3 – OPINION AND ORDER