Camirand v. Department of Corrections et al
Filing
13
ORDER TO DISMISS: Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (#6) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. For the reasons identified above, the dismissal is without leave to amend, but without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to continue to litigate his claims in Camirand v. Oregon the Union, 2:18-cv-00787-MO. Signed on 5/29/2018 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (copy mailed to plaintiff) (kms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
SCOTT LEANDER CAMIRAND,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00615-MO
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO DISMISS
v.
DEPARTMENT
OF
CORRECTIONS,
SGT. CASILLAS, and SNAKE RIVER
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Defendant.
MOSMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff,
Institution,
U.S.C.
§
an
brings
1983.
In
inmate
this
at
set
forth
Two
Rivers
rights
action
separate
a
civil
Order,
the
Plaintiff leave to proceed in
reasons
the
below,
Plaintiff's
pursuant
Court
forma pauper is.
Correctional
to
42
has
granted
However,
for the
Amended
Complaint
is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
See 28 U.S.C.
§
1915 (e) (2).
1 - ORDER TO DISMISS
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
alleges
Plaintiff's
gold
mailing
his
River
to
and
new
that
diamond
teeth
place
Correctional
transfer property.
that
Defendant
set,
confinement,
of
grill
but
Casillas
Institution
did
not
took
apparently
that
include
the
it
Snake
with
his
Plaintiff is "sure no one got to throw []
away someone took it home with them." Amended Complaint
p. 4.
for
Plaintiff alleges
that
this
conduct
violates
the
it
(#6),
Eighth
Amendment.
Plaintiff
also
states
that
unidentified
erroneously placed him in general population.
individuals
This appears to
relate in some way to the mailing of his teeth grill set, but it
is unclear how. He asks for compensation of at least $100,000.
STANDARDS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
1915A(a), the Court is required to
screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental
entity,
officer, or employee and must dismiss a complaint if the
action is frivolous,
which
relief
1915A(b).
may
be
malicious,
granted.
or fails to state a claim upon
28
U.S.C.
In order to state a claim,
rise
to
a
plausible
2 - ORDER TO DISMISS
inference
1915(e) (2) (B)
and
Plaintiff's Complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter which,
gives
§§
when accepted as true,
that
defendants
violated
plaintiff's constitutional rights.
1937, 1949
55 6-5 7
of
Ashcroft v.
(2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
( 2 0 0 7) .
action,
Iqbal,
Twombly,
12 9 S. Ct.
550 U.S. 554,
"Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
supported
by
mere
conclusory
statements,
do
not
suffice." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
Dismissal
for
failure
to
state
a
claim
is
proper
if
it
appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claims that would entitle him to relief.
Washington
County,
88 F.3d 804,
806
(9th Cir.
1996);
Ortez v.
Cervantes
v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993). Because
Plaintiff
pleadings
is
proceeding
pro
se,
the
Court
construes
his
liberally and affords him the benefit of any doubt.
Erickson v.
Pardus,
551 U.S.
89,
94
(2007);
Ortez,
88
F.3d at
806.
DISCUSSION
As
suit,
the
an
initial
in part,
Snake
established
matter,
Plaintiff
purports
to
bring
this
against the Oregon Department of Corrections and
River
that
Correctional
agencies
of
the
Institution.
state
are
"It
immune
is
under
well
the
Eleventh Amendment from private damages or suits for injunctive
relief brought in federal court." Savage v.
3 - ORDER TO DISMISS
Glendale Union High
343 F.3d 1036, 1040
School,
(9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff therefore
fails to state a claim against these two Defendants.
Plaintiff's
principal
claim
involves
an
allegation
that
Defendant Casillas took his teeth grill set, and either stole it
or lost it.
to
Plaintiff states both that the deprivation amounted
negligence,
and also that
the
deprivation was
intentional.
Where an inmate alleges the deprivation of a property interest
caused by the unauthorized negligent or intentional action of a
prison
official,
claim
where
remedy.
See
Hudson v.
the
the
prisoner
state
Zinermon
provides
v.
Burch,
468 U.S.
Palmer,
cannot
517,
31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994)
an
494
533
state
a
adequate
U.S.
constitutional
post-deprivation
113,
129-131
(1984); Barnett v.
(1990);
Centoni,
(per curiam). This rule applies
to both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses.
Raditch
v.
United
929
States,
F.2d 478,
481
(9th Cir.
1991).
Because Oregon provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy in
the form of the Oregon Tort Claims Act,
Plaintiff
fails
to
state
a
claim
O.R.S.
upon
which
30.260 et seq.,
relief
may
be
granted.
Plaintiff
also
classified
for
prison.
does
He
appears
re-entry
not
to
into
assert
the
general
identify how this
4 - ORDER TO DISMISS
that
he
was
improperly
population
at
his
classification violates
any
federal
right,
Plaintiff's
but
assuming
allegations
that
this
is
Defendants
a
continuation
violated
his
of
Eighth
Amendment rights, he fails to state a claim. Even in the context
of inmates placed in a maximum custody unit without a sufficient
basis
to
do
so,
the
does
"misclassification
meaning
of
the
Ninth
not
Eighth
Circuit
itself
Amendment."
concluded
inflict
Hoptowi t
that
pain
v.
such
within
68 2
Ray,
a
the
F. 2d
1237, 1256 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin
v.
515
Conner,
U.S.
472
(1995).
Plaintiff's
basic
allegation
that his classification for housing in general population was in
error
in
claim.
violation
Accordingly,
of
the
the
Eighth Amendment
Court
summarily
fails
dismisses
to
state
a
Plaintiff's
Complaint.
Because
with,
or
Camirand
the
issues
duplicative
v.
Oregon
in
of,
the
this
case
issues
in
Union,
et
are
largely
Plaintiff's
al.,
intertwined
other
2:18-cv-00787-MO,
case,
the
Court does not allow leave to amend in this case, but does allow
leave to amend in 2:18-cv-00787-MO where Plaintiff's allegations
make the nature of his claims clearer.
This dismissal does not
preclude Plaintiff from continuing to litigate 2:18-cv-00787-MO.
Ill
Ill
5 - ORDER TO DISMISS
CONCLUSION
Based
Amended
claim.
the
Complaint
For
without
on
the
leave
to
foregoing,
(#6)
is
reasons
amend,
IT
IS
DISMISSED
identified
but
without
ORDERED
for
above,
that
failure
the
prejudice
Plaintiff's
to
state
dismissal
to
a
is
Plaintiff's
ability to continue to litigate his claims in Camirand v. Oregon
the Union, 2:18-cv-00787-MO.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED this
day of May, 2018.
United States District Judge
6 - ORDER TO DISMISS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?