Ashbaugh v. Yamhill County District Attorney's Office et al
OPINION & ORDER: YCDAO's Motion to Dismiss 24 is deemed voluntarily Withdrawn, with leave to refile. Signed on 11/29/17 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
BRIAN C. ASHBAUGH,
OPINION AND ORDER
YAMHILL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFIC, and YAMHILL COUNTY JAIL,
PAPAK, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Brian Cody Ashbaugh, at that time actingpro se, filed an action (the "16-2332
action") in form a pauperis in this court against defendants the McMinnville Police Department
(the "MPD"), the Yamhill County District Attorney's Office (the "YCDAO"), the Yamhill
County Circuit Court (the "YCCC"), and the Yamhill County Jail (the "YCJ") on December 16,
2016. Effective April 18, 2017, having determined that Ashbaugh would benefit from courtappointed pro bona counsel, I made the first of several attempts to appoint counsel to represent
Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER
Ashbaugh in connection with his claims against the defendants in that action. Ultimately, on
May 11, 2017, Matthew N. Miller accepted the appointment to represent Ashbaugh.
On June 13, 2017, Ashbaugh, acting through Miller as his legal representative, moved to
sever those of his claims in connection with which Miller was willing and able to represent him
from those of his claims in connection with which Miller was either unwilling or unable to
represent him, and for leave of court to amend his pleading in this action to restate only those
claims in connection with which he intended to proceed on a prose basis (with the understanding
that Ashbaugh, by and through Miller as his legal representative, would file a new action in
connection with which he would allege only those claims in connection with which Miller was
willing and able to represent him). On June 19, 2017, I granted Ashbaugh's motion to sever and
motion for leave to amend.
On June 30, 2017, by and through Miller as his legal representative, Ashbaugh filed this
action, alleging the liability of the YCDAO and the YCJ in connection with the claims severed
from the 16-2332 action. Specifically, Ashbaugh herein alleges the liability of the YCDAO and
the YCJ under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of his Foutih Amendment right to freedom
from umeasonable seizure and for the violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural
due process in connection with Ashbaugh's detention in the YCJ without arraignment from May
7 to 27, 2015.
Effective July 27, 2017, Ashbaugh filed an amended complaint in the 16-2332 action,
apparently alleging (i) the liability of the MPD, possibly under Oregon common law, for false
arrest and/or wrongful imprisonment, abuse of process, defamation, and discrimination, and
perhaps additionally under Section 1983 for violation of his Foutih Amendment right to freedom
Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
from unreasonable seizure and/or his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process,
and perhaps additionally for violation of the Freedom oflnformation Act, and (ii) the liability of
the YCDAO, YCCC, and YCJ under Section 1983 for violation of his Fourth Amendment right
to freedom from unreasonable seizure, his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due
process, and his Seventh Amendment right to trial, and under Oregon common law for
defamation, "simulation oflegal process," and "forced homelessness." It appears possible that
Ashbaugh's claims against the YCDAO, YCCC, and the YCJ in the 16-2332 action, including his
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, may (like the claims at issue in this action) arise in
part out of his detention in the YCJ without arraignment from May 7 to 27, 2015.
Now before the court is the YCDAO's motion (#24) to dismiss Ashbaugh's claims against
it in this action on the sole asserted ground that the 16-2332 action remains pending, was earlier
filed, and arises out of some of the same alleged conduct. I heard oral argument on behalf of the
parties in connection with the YCDAO's motion to dismiss on November 28, 2017. 1 At oral
argument, the parties agreed that it would be appropriate for Ashbaugh to amend his pleading in
the 16-2332 action a second time, in material part to clarify that he alleges no claim therein that
is also alleged in connection with this action. Counsel for the YCDAO expressly agreed at oral
argument that the contemplated amendment of Ashbaugh's pleading in the 16-2332 action would
satisfy the YCDAO's concerns regarding the apparent overlap between the claims pending in the
two actions. In light of my direction that Ashbaugh amend his pleading as described above, I
construe the YCDAO's express stipulation as a voluntary withdrawal of its motion to dismiss.
Ashbaugh was represented at oral argument by Miller, and additionally appeared and
spoke on his own behalf. The YCDAO, the YCCC, the YCJ and the MPD appeared through
their respective counsel.
Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER
On that construction, the pending motion (#24) to dismiss is deemed withdrawn with leave to
refile in the event that Ashbaugh fails to amend his pleading in the 16-2332 action as discussed
above by December 13, 2017.
For the reasons set forth above, the YCDAO's motion (#24) to dismiss is deemed
voluntarily withdrawn, with leave to refile as discussed above
Dated this 29th day of November, 2017.
I· 'Qnorable Paul Papak
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 4 - 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?