Williamson v. Multnomah County Circuit Court et al

Filing 6

OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 1 is granted, but Plaintiff's complaint 2 is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. See 4-page opinion & order attached. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TYRONE ADAM WILLIAMSON,
No. 3:14-cv-00609-HZ
Plaintiff,
OPINION & ORDER
v.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, MULTNOMAH COUNTY
SHERIFF, OREGON STATE HOSPITAL,
and DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
Defendants.

Tyrone Adam Williamson
15627 SE Stark A6
Portland, OR 97233
Pro Se Plaintiff
///
///
1 - OPINION & ORDER

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiff Tyrone Williamson, appearing pro se, filed this action on April 14, 2014, and
has applied to proceed in forma pauperis [1]. An examination of the application reveals that
Plaintiff is unable to afford the fees of this action. Accordingly, his application is granted and no
filing fee should be assessed. However, for the reasons set forth below, the complaint is
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
STANDARDS
“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v.
Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) (“It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua
sponte for lack of jurisdiction.”). Moreover, a complaint filed in forma pauperis may be
dismissed at any time, including before service of process, if the court determines that:
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); Jackson v.
State of Ariz., 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Lopez v. Dep’t of Health
Servs., 939 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1991). A court must liberally construe the allegations of a
pro se plaintiff and afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Lopez, 939 F.2d at 883.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges two claims. In his first claim, Plaintiff states the following:
In 1994 I filed a restraining order against Dorothy N Williamson on property
5016 NE 14th Place Portland Oregon 97213….I was arrested over 20 times,
eventually was forcibly convicted of guilty by reason of insanity,
2 - OPINION & ORDER

however…Dorothy N Williamson did not have a legal restraining order…thus
using the police to wrongfully steal and sell my property…also harass me assault
me and the Multnomah County Sheriff office strong armed me assaulted me and
stole property….The Circuit Court as well as the DA knew in 1999 of this and did
not nor have not made me whole….The Oregon State Hospital has not made me
whole[.]
Compl. 3. In his second claim, Plaintiff alleges that the “DA OSH Multnomah County Sheriffs
[and] Circuit Court” had an obligation to “defend [his] property.” Id. at 4. In documents
attached to the complaint, Dorothy Williamson obtained a restraining order against Plaintiff in
August 1994. Compl. 17. Also in August 1994, Plaintiff obtained a restraining order against
Dorothy Williamson. Id. Ex. 1 at 9. Plaintiff was found guilty of violating the restraining order,
a misdemeanor, in March 1998. Id. at 13.
The bases for Plaintiff’s claims are allegations that occurred in 1994, 1998, and 1999—
events that happened 15 to 20 years ago. Even if I were to construe Plaintiff’s claims as based in
42 U.S.C. § 1983, the statute of limitations is two years. “We have held that § 1983 claims are to
be characterized as personal injury actions for statute of limitations purposes. Oregon’s general
tort statute provides a 2-year statute of limitations.” Plumeau v. School Dist. #40, 130 F.3d 432,
438 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); Gomez v. Hardie, No. 13-cv-00161-ST, 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 41692, at *11 (D. Or. Feb. 19, 2013). The statute of limitation has long passed for
Plaintiff’s claims; therefore the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Additionally, because the dates of the events will not change, the complaint is dismissed with
prejudice, as amendment would be futile. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely
give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”); but see Carrico v. City and Cnty. of San
Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend is properly denied “if
amendment would be futile”).
///
3 - OPINION & ORDER

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [1] is
granted, but Plaintiff’s complaint [2] is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this

day of April, 2014.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

4 - OPINION & ORDER