McNair v. State of Oregon et al

Filing 21

ORDER: This Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Amend 19 . The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to detach the proposed Second Amended Complaint and file it in the Court record. FURTHER, this Court dismisses Plaintiff's Second Amen ded Complaint for failure to comply with Fed. R. of Civ. P. 8(a) and 10(b). Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint, within thirty days of the date of this Order, correcting the deficiencies noted above. Plaintiff shall use the Court's p risoner civil rights form. Finally, this Court denies as moot Plaintiff's Motions to Compel and to Answer 15 and 20 , and denies Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 16 . The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a prisoner civil rights complaint form with this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 2/23/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
FOR THE DISTRJCT OF OREGON
MINISTER TIMOTHY LUTHER McNAIR,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-00871-SB

ORDER

v.

STATE OF OREGON, et al.,
Defendants.

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI), brings this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court are Plaintiffs Motions to Compel,
for Preliminary Injunction, for Leave to File Amended Complaint, and to Answer (ECF Nos. 15, 16,
19, and 20).

DISCUSSION
I.

Motion to Amend
On July 19, 2016, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's original Complaint (ECF No. 2) because

it violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and lO(b). The Court discussed the deficiencies of the Complaint as
follows:

1 -ORDER

Plaintiff lists the name of each Defendant followed by a brief summary of the
Defendant's conduct and/or constitutional amendment(s) allegedly violated. As a
result, in order to accurately construe Plaintiffs Complaint, it is necessary to make
an outline of potential claims for each incident and match the claims to the
Defendants allegedly involved. Construing the Complaint in this manner is overly
burdensome and creates the risk that the Court or Defendants will fail to accurately
determine the nature and number of Plaintiffs claims, or incorrectly identify the
Defendants against whom each claim is brought.

Finally, the State of Oregon, SRCI, and the SRCI Medical Department are
dismissed on the basis that they are entitled to sovereign immunity from suit. Puerto
Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); see
also Will v. Michigan Dep't. ofState Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63-64, 71 (1989) (state is
not a person within the meaning of§ 1983).
Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 8) at 3.
In the same Order, this Court granted Plaintiffleave to amend with the following instructions:
Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint which sets forth claims for relief. For
example, if Plaintiff seeks to allege that Defendants retaliated against him for filing
grievances, he shall allege a claim for retaliation, list the defendants against whom
the claim is brought, and set forth a concise statement of facts that support a
reasonable inference that each Defendant is liable for the alleged occurrence. Plaintiff
is advised that each named Defendant must have been personally involved in the
alleged constitutional violation. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
A Defendant is not liable merely on the basis that he or she is a supervisor. See
Monell v. New York City Dep't ofSoc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978).
Id.

On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECFNo. 14). On February 13,
2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to File an Amended Complaint, with a proposed Second Amended
Complaint.
Because this Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to amend, this Court grants his Motion
to Amend (ECF No. 19). The Clerk of the Court is directed to detach the proposed Second Amended
Complaint from the Motion and file it in the Coutt record. However, this Court dismisses Plaintiffs

2-0RDER

Second Amended Complaint for the reasons set forth in the Court's previous Order of Dismissal,
i.e., for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and lO(b). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and
1915A(b) (directing court to dismiss complaint brought by prisoner against governmental entity,
official, or employee for failure to state a claim).
Plaintiff again sets forth his factual allegations in a section organized by defendant, 1 and also

in a section captioned "Statement of Facts" (which is ordered chronologically).' The Second
Amended Complaint is overly burdensome because "it is necessary to make an outline of potential
claims for each incident and match the claims to the Defendants allegedly involved." Order of
Dismissal (ECF No. 8) at 3. As previously noted by the Court, this creates the risk that the Court or
Defendants will fail to determine accurately the nature and number of Plaintiffs claims, or will
incorrectly identify the Defendants against whom each claim is brought. Id. This problem is
exacerbated by the fact that under the heading "Relief Requested," Plaintiff sets forth his claims
against all Defendants despite the fact that it is apparent from the face of the Second Amended
Complaint that not all Defendants were personally involved in each alleged violation. See Salazar

v. Cty. of Orange, No. 12-56545, 564 F. App'x 322, 322 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of
complaint which lumped together claims and defendants, and left defendants guessing which claims
were brought against them).
For all of these reasons, this Court grants Plaintiffs Motion to Amend (ECF No. 19). The
Clerk of the Court is directed to detach the proposed Second Amended Complaint and file it in the
Court record. Further, this Court dismisses Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff may
file a Third Amended Complaint, within thirty days of the date of this Order, curing the deficiencies
1

See Second Am. Comp!. at 8-25.

2

See Second Am. Comp!. at 25-37.

3-0RDER

noted above. Plaintiff shall use the Court's prisoner civil rights form. Plaintiff is advised that ifhe
fails to file a Third Amended Complaint, or fails to use the Court's prisoner civil rights complaint
form, the Court will dismiss this proceeding, with prejudice.

II.

Remaining Motions
Because this Court dismisses Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, the Court denies as

moot his Motions to Compel and to Answer (ECF Nos. 15 and 20). Additionally, this Court denies
Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 16), with leave to renew upon satisfactory
compliance with this Order. Plaintiff is advised that a mandatory injunction which goes beyond
maintaining the status quo, shall not be granted unless Plaintiff demonstrates that the facts and law
clearly favor an injunction. Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Am.
Freedom Def Initiative v. King Cty., 796 F.3d 1165, 1173 (9th Cir. 2015) (mandatory injunctions
are disfavored and will not be entered in doubtful cases).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, this Court grants Plaintiffs Motion to Amend (ECF No. 19). The
Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to detach the proposed Second Amended Complaint and file it in
the Court record. FURTHER, this Court dismisses Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for failure
to comply with Fed. R. ofCiv. P. 8(a) and lO(b). Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint,
within thirty days of the date of this Order, conecting the deficiencies noted above. Plaintiff shall
use the Court's prisoner civil rights form.

Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
4-0RDER

Finally, this Court denies as moot Plaintiff's Motions to Compel and to Answer (ECF Nos.
15 and 20), and denies Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 16). The Clerk of the
Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a prisoner civil rights complaint fo1m with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this _i&_ day of February, 2017.

United States District Judge

5-0RDER