Ouma v. Clackamas County et al

Filing 23

OPINION & ORDER: Defendants' motions to dismiss ( 9 and 11 ) are GRANTED. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within three weeks of the date of this order. See 5-page opinion & order attached. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

WASHIE OUMA, an individual,
No. 03:12-cv-01465-HZ
Plaintiff,
OPINION & ORDER
v.
CLACKAMAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, and JOHN DOES 1-9,
Defendants.
Marianne G. Dugan
ATTORNEY AT LAW
259 E. 5th Ave., Suite 200-D
Eugene, OR 97401
Attorney for Plaintiff
1 - ORDER

Alexander Gordon
CLACKAMAS COUNTY COUNSEL
2051 Kaen Road, 4th Floor
Oregon City, OR 97045
Attorney for Clackamas County
Chelsea J. Glynn
Elmer Manuel Dickens, Jr.
WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL
155 N. First Ave., Suite 340, MS 24
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Attorneys for Washington County
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiff Washie Ouma brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants
Clackamas County, Washington County, and John Does 1-9. Plaintiff claims that he was falsely
arrested and mistreated during his imprisonment in Washington County and Clackamas County
jails. Defendants moved separately to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims.
Oral argument was held on April 22, 2013. For the reasons stated on the record and those
that follow, Defendants’ motions to dismiss (#9 and #11) are GRANTED.
STANDARDS
On a motion to dismiss, the court must review the sufficiency of the complaint. Scheuer
v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). All allegations of material fact are taken as true and
construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Am. Family Ass'n., Inc. v. City &
County of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the court need not
accept conclusory allegations as truthful. Holden v. Hagopian, 978 F.2d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir.
1992).

2 - ORDER

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) will be granted if plaintiff alleges the “grounds”
of his “entitlement to relief” with nothing “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action[.]” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level, . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact)[.]” Id. (citations and footnote omitted).
To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face[,]” meaning “when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “only a complaint that states a plausible claim
for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Id. The complaint must contain “well-pleaded facts”
which “permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679.
DISCUSSION
I.

Dismissal of Claims
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint contains many errors, some of which were discussed

at oral argument. These errors are significant and do not provide sufficient notice of the claims in
order for Defendants to respond. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed for the reasons stated
on the record, but with leave to amend.
II.

“John Doe” Pleading
Defendant Clackamas County argues that Plaintiff’s claims against John Does 1-6 should

be dismissed. Clackamas Cnty. Memo. 26-30. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has had plenty of
time to identify and serve the fictitious defendants and that Plaintiff cannot establish that his suit
3 - ORDER

against any John Doe defendant would withstand the motion to dismiss. Id. at 28. Plaintiff argues
that “it would be improper to dismiss without discovery and submission of evidence in a
summary judgment proceeding.” Pl.’s Resp. to Clackamas Cnty. Memo. 9.
As a general rule, the use of “John Doe” to identify defendants is disfavored. Gillespie v.
Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). However, when a situation arises where the
identities of alleged defendants are unknown prior to filing the complaint, the plaintiff “should
be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear
that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on
other grounds.” Id. See also Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999)
This case is still in an early stage and the parties have not engaged in significant
discovery. Therefore, I will allow Plaintiff to continue to allege claims against John Does for the
time being.
III.

Sanctions
Defendant Clackamas County requests that the Court impose sanctions on Plaintiff’s

counsel under either 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the Court’s inherent authority, for pursuing claims
lacking in evidentiary support. I reserve the issue of sanctions until the merits of the case are
decided.

///

///

///
4 - ORDER

CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons above, Defendants’ motions to dismiss (#9 and #11) are
GRANTED. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within three weeks of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this _________ day of April, 2013.

______________________________
MARCO HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge

5 - ORDER