Harris v. Multnomah Sheriffs Department et al
Filing
10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiff fails to state a viable claim for relief under § 1983 and this action is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Any appeal of this Order or Judgment dismissing this action would be frivolous or not taken in good faith, and plaintiff's IFP status is REVOKED. Signed on 11/17/2022 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 11/17/2022.) (bd)
Case 3:22-cv-00570-MK
Document 10
Filed 11/17/22
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
TERA HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00570-MK
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
MULTNOMAH SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT and CITY CENTRAL
CONCERN,
Defendants.
_________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO),
filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged civil rights violations against MCSO and Central
City Concern1 arising from her return to custody. Plaintiff’s Complaint did not state a viable
claim under § 1983 and she was allowed the opportunity to amend her allegations. Plaintiff
timely filed an Amended Complaint, and it was referred to the undersigned for final disposition.
Plaintiff names City Central Concern as a defendant; however, the correct name of the
agency is Central City Concern.
1
-1-
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Case 3:22-cv-00570-MK
Document 10
Filed 11/17/22
Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff alleges that she was released from MCSO custody and placed with Central City
Concern, a non-profit agency that provides housing assistance and other programs. Plaintiff
alleges that defendants “made a secret determination” that she was “guilty of authorized
absences from treatment classes” and returned her to MCSO custody, despite the fact that she
had medical authorization to miss treatment classes because her medical conditions placed her at
risk of contracting COVID-19. Am. Compl. at 3. Plaintiff claims that defendants’ actions
violated her due process rights and discriminated against her in violation of the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA).
To state a civil rights claim under § 1983, plaintiff must allege that 1) a “person” acting
under color of law 2) deprived her of a federal constitutional right. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Stein v.
Ryan, 662 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2011). As plaintiff was advised previously, Central City
Concern is not a “person” action under color of law within the meaning of § 1983. Further, to
proceed against Multnomah County, plaintiff must allege facts giving rise to a reasonable
inference that (1) Multnomah County had a policy, custom, or widespread practice that was the
moving force behind the violation of her constitutional rights; (2) Multnomah County failed to
properly train its officers and the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s
rights; or (3) the individual who violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights had final policy-making
authority or ratified a subordinate’s unconstitutional decision or action and the basis for it.
Rodriguez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 802-03 (9th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff fails to allege
facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that Multnomah County violated her constitutional
rights pursuant to an unconstitutional policy or custom, as the result of a failure to train its
officers, or by an officer with final policy-making authority.
-2-
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Case 3:22-cv-00570-MK
Document 10
Filed 11/17/22
Page 3 of 3
Plaintiff also fails to allege facts suggesting that either defendant violated the ADA by
excluding her from participating in or denying her the benefits of County services, programs, or
activities, or by otherwise discriminating against her because of a disability. McGary v. City of
Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004). Rather, plaintiff alleges that defendants made an
unwarranted decision about her attendance at treatment classes that led to her return to custody.
Ultimately, plaintiff challenges her custody status, and any challenge to the fact or
legality of her custody must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus rather than in a civil
rights action under § 1983. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d
874 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff is further advised that she must exhaust her state court remedies
before bringing a federal habeas action challenging the fact or legality of her confinement.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff fails to state a viable claim for relief under § 1983 and this action is
DISMISSED, with prejudice. Any appeal of this Order or Judgment dismissing this action would
be frivolous or not taken in good faith, and plaintiff’s IFP status is REVOKED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ____
17th day of November, 2022.
_________________________
/s/Ann Aiken
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge
-3-
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
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?