Jackson v. Nelson et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO DISMISS: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (# 2 ) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Should Plaintiff wish to proceed with this action, he must file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted above within 3 0 days of the date of this Order. Any such amended complaint cannot incorporate any other document by reference, must contain a short, plain statement of Plaintiff's claims, and must describe how each named Defendant personally participated in a federal deprivation. Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint consistent with this Order shall result in the dismissal of this proceeding, with prejudice. Signed on 7/30/2018 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (joha)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JAMES DONALD JACKSON,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01007-MO
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO DISMISS
v.

CO R. NELSON, et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff,
Institution,
U.S.C.

§

an

brings

1983.

inmate
this

at

civil

the

Two

rights

In a separate Order,

Rivers

action

Correctional

pursuant

to

42

the Court granted Plaintiff

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons set
forth below,
state a
§

Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for failure to

claim upon which relief may be granted.

1915 (e) (2).

Ill
1 - ORDER TO DISMISS

See 28

U.S.C.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his right to due
process insofar as they:

( 1)

refused to allow him to have his

preferred inmate as a cell mate;

(2) wrote up a false misconduct

report for Disrespect II when he approached prison staff about
the

issue,

Segregation
disciplinary

leading
Unit

to

his

("DSU");

hearing

placement

and

when

(3)

they

in

the

deprived

covered

up

a

Disciplinary

him
false

of

a

fair

misconduct

report Defendants generated so as to prevent him from becoming
cell mates with his requested inmate.
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants

infringed upon his

right to access the courts,

that there are racial overtones to

Defendants'

and

that

Defendants

who

were

prepared

Plaintiff

decisions,
with

inmates

to

improperly
fight

him

housed
in

an

attempt to set up "gladiator cage matches." He seeks $445,000 in
damages as a result of these alleged actions.
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

may

be

malicious,
granted.

2 - ORDER TO DISMISS

or fails to state a claim upon
28

U.S. C.

§§

1915 (e) (2) (B)

and

1915A(b).

In order to state a claim,

Plaintiff's Complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter which, when accepted as true,
gives

rise

to

a

plausible

inference

plaintiff's constitutional rights.

that

defendants

Ashcroft v.

556-57
of

(2007) .

action,

129 S.Ct.

Iqbal,

1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

violated

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. Ortez v.
Washington County,

88 F.3d 804,

806

(9th Cir.

1996);

Cervantes

v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993). Because

Plaintiff
pleadings

is

proceeding

pro

the

se,

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

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a complaint shall include
"a

short

pleader

and
is

plain

statement

entitled to

shall be simple,

of

relief."

the

claim

"Each averment

concise and direct." Fed.

3 - ORDER TO DISMISS

showing

R.

of

Civ.

a
P.

that

the

pleading
8 (e).

If

the

factual

elements

of

a

cause

of

action

are

scattered

throughout the complaint but are not organized into a "short and
plain statement of the claim," dismissal for failure to satisfy
Rule 8(a)
635,

640

Ins.

Co.,

is proper.
(9th Cir.

Sparling v.

1988);

651 F.2d 671,

Hoffman

see also Nevijel

674

Co.,

Constr.

(9th Cir. 1981)

v.

North

864 F.2d

Coast Life

(district court may

dismiss an action with prejudice due to a litigant's failure to
comply with Rule 8(a) if meaningful, less drastic sanctions have
been explored) . The propriety of dismissal for failure to comply
with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly
without

meri t--the

requirement

of

a

pleading

to

be

"simple,

concise, and direct," applies to good claims as well as bad, and
is a basis for dismissal independent of Rule 12 (b) ( 6) . McHenry
v.

Renne,

In

84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996).
this

case,

Plaintiff's

throughout his Complaint,

allegations

are

scattered

and it is difficult to ascertain the

true nature of his several challenges, especially where similar,
conclusory allegations spill over from one claim to the next. In
addition,

al though

Plaintiff makes

allegations

"racial overtones" to the Defendants decisions,

that

there

are

he provides no

specifics on this point and alternately appears to assert that
prison officials

are

attempting to protect

4 - ORDER TO DISMISS

other inmates

from

Plaintiff

based

assaulting

upon

several

purported

his

prior

cellmates.

A pleading

of

sexually

that

history

complies

with FRCP 8(a) would help to clarify these issues.
With
Sandin

respect

v.

Conner,

to

Plaintiff's

515 U.S.

472,

due

484

process

(1995)

claims,

under

provides that state

law creates liberty interests for prisoners only when physical
restraints

impose

"atypical

and

significant

hardship

on

the

inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." In
Sandin,

an

inmate

disciplinary

was

hearing

charged infractions.

not

and

allowed
was

to

present

ultimately

found

witnesses
guilty

The hearings officer sentenced the

at

of

a

the

inmate

to 30 days in disciplinary segregation. The inmate brought suit
claiming

that

he

had

a

protected

liberty

interest

in calling

witnesses at his disciplinary hearing.
The

Supreme Court determined that

the

Due

Process

Clause

only protects a prisoner's liberty interest where he is subject
to a restraint which "imposes atypical and significant hardship
on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life." Id at 484. "Discipline by prison officials in response to
a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected perimeters
of the sentence imposed by a court of law."
holding,

Id at

485.

In so

the Court wished to avoid "the involvement of federal

5 - ORDER TO DISMISS

courts

in

the

squander[s]

day-to-day

management

of

prisons"

which

"often

judicial resources with little offsetting benefit to

anyone." Id at 482.
As
process
which

Sandin,

in

violation
resulted

disciplinary
support

of

atypical,

in his
from

his

due

Clause. Allen v.

process

the

assignment

to

find

of

allege

that
which

creates

not

a

due

5 F.3d 1151,

1153

proper

facts

in

type

of

the
a

to give

offend

a

any

describe

failure

does

to

deprivation

claims

Similarly,

court

in disciplinary segregation

fails

deprivation

Purkett,

this

alleged

Plaintiff

significant

housing

asks

placement

the

hearing.

liberty interest.
preferred

Plaintiff

protected

Plaintiff his

the

Due

Process

(8th Cir. 1993)

(per

curiam) .
Plaintiff

also

claim.

However,

he was

unable

which

he

was

makes

reference

to

an

access

to

courts

it is unclear from his Complaint what documents
to

file

with the Court,

deprived of

that

the

ability,

circumstances under

and what

prejudice

he

suffered. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 354-55 (1996).
Finally,
intentionally
intention

although
housed

instigating

currently at

issue

in

Plaintiff
him

with

physical

Jackson

6 - ORDER TO DISMISS

alleges

that

specific

inmates

altercations,

v.

CO Yeager,

Defendants

that
et

al.,

with
claim

have
the
is

2: 18-cv-

00816-MO, and Plaintiff has no right to bring the same claim in
multiple actions. See, e.g., Adams v. California Dept. of Health
487

Services,

reasons,

F.3d 684,

688

(9th Cir.

2007).

For all of these

Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted.
CONCLUSION

Based

on

the

Complaint (#2)

foregoing,

IT

IS

ORDERED

that

Plaintiff's

is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Should

Plaintiff wish

to

proceed with

this

action,

he

must

file

an

amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted above within 30
days

of

the

date

of

this

Order.

Any

such

amended

complaint

cannot incorporate any other document by reference, must contain
a

short,

plain

statement

of

Plaintiff's

claims,

and

must

describe how each named Defendant personally participated in a
federal
complaint

deprivation.
consistent

Plaintiff's

failure

with

Order

this

to
shall

dismissal of this proceeding, with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

3Q.~
day

7 - ORDER TO DISMISS

of July, 2018.

file

an

result

amended
in

the