Carr et al v. Oregon Department of Human Services et al

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' Complaint 1 is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiffs' Application 2 is DENIED. Signed on 3/6/2025 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se parties on 3/6/2025.) (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CLARENCE CARR and
SHAKIRA CARR,

Case No. 1:25-cv-00242-MC
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES, et al,
Defendants.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Self-represented Plaintiffs Clarence and Shakira Carr seek leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) in this action. See Pls.’ Compl., ECF No. 1.; Pls.’ IFP Appl., ECF No. 2.
This Court has discretion in deciding whether to grant IFP. See O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920
F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). To qualify, a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant
is unable to pay court fees and that the claims the litigant seeks to pursue are not frivolous. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); O'Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617. The court construes
pleadings by self-represented litigants liberally, affording the litigant “the benefit of any doubt.”
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Unless it is “absolutely
clear” that the complaint’s defects cannot be cured by amendment, a self-represented litigant is
entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal
of the action. Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).

1 – Opinion and Order

Plaintiffs here have already been notified of their claims’ deficiencies and provided an
opportunity to amend. See Carr et al v. Leonard et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-01681-CL. Having had
their previous complaint dismissed for failure to cure, Plaintiffs now attempt to reinstitute the
same case in a new division. Because the same issues remain, this Court dismisses the instant
Complaint and denies Plaintiffs’ IFP Application, as explained below.
DISCUSSION
On October 2, 2024, Plaintiffs Shakira and Clarence Carr filed a complaint and a motion
for a temporary restraining order in the Medford Division. See Leonard Compl., ECF No. 1;
Mot., ECF No. 7. Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered civil rights violations during a custody
matter that began in October 2023 and resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs’ children from their
custody. The named defendants included: the Oregon Department of Human Services (“DHS”),
various DHS agents, the Medford Police Department, Officer Cleo Harvey, Jackson County
Circuit Court Judges Hoppe and Bloom, Attorney General Jeremy Karns, and “additional
defendants to be determined.” Leonard Compl., 1–2. Plaintiffs asserted claims for First, Fourth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, as well as claims for conspiracy, fraud,
malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and “violations of common law rights.”
Id. at 7–10.
The following day, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, explaining that the claims that
Plaintiffs sought to pursue were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Younger abstention
doctrine, and absolute judicial immunity. Leonard Op. and Order, ECF No. 8. Based on that
same reasoning, the Court found that the complaint failed to state a claim and dismissed it,
granting Plaintiffs an opportunity to cure with amendment. Leonard Op. and Order, ECF No. 9.
Plaintiffs timely filed an amended complaint, but it failed to cure all deficiencies. The Court

2 – Opinion and Order

accordingly dismissed the complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. Leonard F. &
R., ECF No. 16 (adopted in full at ECF No. 19). Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and that
appeal is still pending. Leonard Notice, ECF No. 21.
Despite that, Plaintiff filed this action on February 12, 2025, listing nearly identical
defendants, claims, and allegations. In this Complaint, improperly styled as a “petition for writ of
habeas corpus,” Plaintiffs allege that they suffered civil rights deprivations during the same
October 2023 custody matter. Pls.’ Compl. 2–5. The Complaint names essentially the same
defendants: DHS, “various CPS agents,” the Medford Police Department, Officer Cleo Harvey,
Jackson County Circuit Court, Attorney General Jeremy Karns, and “any and all persons acting
in concert to deprive Petitioners of their constitutional rights.” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs assert claims for
First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, fraud and
conspiracy, and a new claim for violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Id. at 4–5. As relief,
Plaintiffs request (1) a writ of habeas corpus directing Defendants “to immediately rectify the
unlawful seizure of their children,” (2) an order compelling “an evidentiary hearing to review the
fraudulent removal process,” (3) a declaration that DHS’s actions were unconstitutional, (4) a
declaration that Plaintiffs’ children must be immediately returned to their custody, (5) a referral
of this matter for federal investigation, and (6) any other relief deemed just and proper. Id. at 5.
Because the defendants, claims, and allegations are largely unchanged from the Leonard
Complaint to the instant one, the Court’s past rulings still apply. Plaintiffs continue to allege the
same defendants infringed their constitutional rights, continue to seek an investigation into DHS
and its removal process, and continue to challenge the state court’s custody decision and
impartiality. As before, those claims are barred. Plaintiffs were given notice of those deficiencies
and afforded an opportunity to cure in light of the Court’s findings. Plaintiffs failed to do so. The

3 – Opinion and Order

Court properly dismissed a second time with prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiffs
took their opportunity to appeal, and while that appeal is still pending, Plaintiffs are not
permitted to circumvent Leonard by merely reinstituting the same case in a different division.
For the same reasons, res judicata (or “claim preclusion”) bars Plaintiffs from bringing
this action. “Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action
of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.” Owens v. Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting West'n Radio Servs.
Co. Glickman, 143 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 1998)). “The doctrine is available whenever there
is: “(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) identity or privity
between parties.” Id. Here, all of Plaintiffs’ claims “arise out of the same transactional nucleus of
facts” as has been previously adjudicated in the prior proceedings. Id. at 714 (quoting Frank v.
United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2000)). As Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res
judicata, the claims must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with
prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ Application, ECF No. 2, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March
DATED this _____
2025.
6th day of _______________,
/s/Michael McShane
________________________________
Michael McShane
United States District Judge

4 – Opinion and Order