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)

Download PDF
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?