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