Neal v. State of Oregon Sheriff's Office et al
ORDER TO DISMISS: The Court DISMISSES plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint, curing the deficiencies noted above, within 30 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an Amended Complaint will result in the dismissal of this proceeding, with prejudice. Signed on 6/3/2021 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 6/3/2021.) (joha)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
BRET WYATT NEAL,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00307-JR
ORDER TO DISMISS
STATE OF OREGON SHERIFF S OFFICE;
THE D.A. OFFICE OF HOOD RIVER COUNTY;
KATE BROWN; RICHARD PRINCEHOUSE;
and CARRIE RASMUSSEN
HERNÀNDEZ, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff, an adult in custody at the NORCOR Adult Corrections Facility, brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to an Order entered this date, the Court
granted plaintiff s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
below, the Court dismisses plaintiff s Complaint.
1 - ORDER TO DISMISS
However, for the reasons set forth
Plaintiff appears to allege that defendant Officer Princehouse violated plaintiff s due
process rights by failing to properly investigate unidentified charges against plaintiff.
defendant Rasmussen, who appears to be a private citizen, violated his rights in connection with
testimony given to a grand jury.
Finally, plaintiff alleges defendant Governor Kate Brown signed
a Governor s warrant against him without ensuring the Hood River County District Attorney s
office had sufficient proof to justify the warrant.
Plaintiff does not specify the relief sought, nor
has plaintiff signed the Complaint.1
A district court must dismiss an action initiated by a prisoner seeking redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee, if the Court determines that the action (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.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b).
When a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and afford
the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Moreover,
before dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, the court supplies the
plaintiff with a statement of the complaint s deficiencies.
Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police
Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1988); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.
1987). A pro se litigant will be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that
appears plaintiff may have failed to submit the entirety of his Complaint, as the Court
received only pages one through four of what is generally a six-page form Complaint.
2 - ORDER TO DISMISS
the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at
623; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, [a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a complaint shall include a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
Each allegation must be simple, concise
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) is proper.
Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d
635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.
1981) (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); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
( each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct ).
Likewise, the failure to
indicate what in particular a plaintiff seeks by way of relief is in itself a failure to state a claim.
Conkey v. Reno, 885 F.Supp. 1389, 1392 (D.Nev. 1995).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a), every pleading, motion and other paper submitted by an
individual proceeding pro se shall be signed by the plaintiff.
The court must strike an unsigned
paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the . . . party s attention.
Here, as noted, plaintiff did not sign his Complaint and did not allege the relief sought.
Accordingly, plaintiff must file an Amended Complaint curing these deficiencies.
3 - ORDER TO DISMISS
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
1983, a complaint must allege that a defendant, while
acting under color of state law, caused a deprivation of the plaintiff s federal rights.
1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,
1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A § 1983 plaintiff must establish both causation-in-fact
and proximate (i.e., legal) causation.
(9th Cir. 2008).
See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026
Allegations regarding § 1983 causation must be individualized and focus on the
duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to
have caused a constitutional deprivation.
Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988)
Sweeping conclusory allegations [regarding causation] will not suffice[.]
Id. (citation omitted).
As to defendant Officer Princehouse, plaintiff fails to allege facts substantiating a claim
that he violated plaintiff s due process rights.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff claims that
Princehouse denied plaintiff a fair trial by failing to adequately investigate, that claim is barred
under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994).
Under Heck, a § 1983 claim for damages
may not be asserted if a judgment in the plaintiff s favor on that claim would necessarily imply the
invalidity of a conviction or sentence which remains outstanding against the plaintiff.
Id. at 486.
Plaintiff cannot bring such a claim in a § 1983 action unless and until he has successfully
invalidated his conviction on appeal, in a habeas action, or by other appropriate means.
Plaintiff s claim against defendant Rasmussen fails as well.
A private citizen who appears
as a witness before the grand jury does not act under color of state law as required by § 1983.
See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991) (generally, private parties are not acting
4 - ORDER TO DISMISS
under color of state law).
Moreover, both private individuals and government officials who serve
as witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to their testimony.
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 326 (1983); Paine v. City of Lompoc, 265 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.
2001). This immunity extends to testimony given at pre-trial hearings.
Holt v. Castaneda, 832
F.2d 123, 127 (9th Cir. 1987).
Finally, plaintiff fails to state a claim against defendant Governor Brown upon which relief
may be granted under 1983.
A civil rights action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking
to challenge the conditions of his or her confinement.
Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th
By contrast, habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner
seeking to challenge the fact or duration of his or her confinement.
U.S. 475, 484, (1973).
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
Here, plaintiff appears to challenge his extradition, which ultimately
resulted in his confinement at NORCOR.
Plaintiff s success in this action would necessarily call
into question the validity of his confinement.
Accordingly, a writ of habeas corpus is plaintiff s
sole remedy in federal court which may be pursued only after exhausting all of his constitutional
claims in state court.
See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) ( a state prisoner s
1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable
relief), no matter the target of the prisoner s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal
prison proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of
confinement or its duration. ) (emphasis in original); Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (a state prisoner
may not recover damages under
1983 for allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment, or for any
other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render the imprisonment invalid, unless
he can prove that the conviction or other basis for confinement has been reversed on direct appeal,
5 - ORDER TO DISMISS
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a
determination, or called into question by a federal court s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus); see
also Nelson v. Lucas, No. 99-36127, 2000 WL 1411181 at *2 (9th Cir. Sept.26, 2000) (affirming
district court s dismissal of plaintiff s claims concerning his extradition from Nevada to
Washington as Heck barred); Scott v. Director of Corrs., No. C02-3507CRB(PR), 2002 WL
1767415 at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2002) (dismissing civil rights complaint alleging extradition
from Ohio to California was illegal without prejudice to the proper filing of a petition for writ of
Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff s Complaint.
Plaintiff may file
an Amended Complaint, curing the deficiencies noted above, within 30 days of the date of this
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an Amended Complaint will result in the dismissal
of this proceeding, with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
day of June 2021.
Marco A. Hernàndez
Chief United States District Judge
6 - ORDER TO DISMISS
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?