Lukens v. Portland Police Bureau et al
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants motion for partial dismissal 27 is GRANTED. To the extent plaintiff attempts to raise an independent claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, that claim is dismissed with prejudice. All claims against Mayor Sam Adams are also dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 1/18/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
TROY A. LUKENS,
Plaintiff,
No. 3:11-cv-00827-MO
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
PORTLAND POLICE BUREAU, et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
Pro se plaintiff Troy Lukens, an inmate at the Oregon State Penitentiary, originally filed
this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Portland Police Bureau (“PPB”) and
PPB officers Jane Doe and Aaron Schmautz. He filed an amended complaint on December 16,
2011. At issue now is defendants’ motion [27] to partially dismiss plaintiff’s amended
complaint, which I grant for the reasons explained below.
STANDARD
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The plausibility standard “asks for more than a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. The court construes pro se
pleadings “liberally,” affording plaintiffs the “benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Plier, 627 F.3d
338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
DISCUSSION
Mr. Lukens alleges Officer Schmautz and an unidentified PPB officer unlawfully stopped
him on the street and that Officer Schmautz found contraband and unlawfully arrested him. Mr.
Lukens initially based his § 1983 claim on violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments. Defendants moved to dismiss any claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments, as well as all claims against the PPB. I granted that motion on November 29,
2011, but also granted plaintiff leave to amend. He filed his amended complaint on December
16, 2011. It adds the City of Portland as a defendant and drops the PPB, consistent with my
ruling. However, it also adds Mayor Sam Adams as a defendant and, while not clear, seems to
maintain a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims
against Mayor Adams and also the Fourteenth Amendment claim.
I previously dismissed with prejudice any independent Fourteenth Amendment due
process claim, and therefore any such claim in the amended complaint fails. I also now dismiss
all claims against Mayor Adams. Plaintiff’s amended complaint merely alleges that the “City of
Portland and Mayor Samual [sic] Adams failed to adequately train defendants . . . [and] failed to
admonish defendants or take adequate steps to insure that plaintiff’ [sic] said rights were not
violated.” (Am. Compl. [25] 6). Beyond this conclusory statement, plaintiff alleges no personal
involvement by Mayor Adams with the facts of this case or with police training more generally.
He therefore fails to satisfy the basic pleading requirements. Since plaintiff has had multiple
2 – OPINION AND ORDER
opportunities to explain any theory of liability as to Mayor Adams and has not even responded to
defendants’ motion to dismiss, I conclude that dismissal with prejudice of any claims against
Mayor Adams is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal [27] is GRANTED. To the extent plaintiff
attempts to raise an independent claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, that claim is dismissed
with prejudice. All claims against Mayor Sam Adams are also dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
18th
day of January, 2012.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Court
3 – OPINION AND ORDER
.
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?