Sharp v. Callahan et al

Filing 14

ORDER: Granting Motion to Dismiss 5 ; Granting Motion to Dismiss 6 . Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants are hereby dismissed. Signed on 6/3/2011 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (lg)

, .'
~:._ 0:0

",

'~

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Civ. No.
11-6157-AA
OPINION AND ORDER

JEFFREY G. SHARP,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAROL CALLAHAN, KAREN KEMPER,
BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
OFF. RICHARD BRENNER,
Defendants.
AIKEN, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (doc.
May 9,

2011).

Notably,

even though the court has

1,

filed

not granted

plaintiff's IFP motion and allowed the case to proceed without the
payment

of

fees,

plaintiff

has

apparently

served

defendants,

resulting in numerous and unnecessary filings including Motions to
Dismiss

by

examination

1

defendants
of

Brenner

plaintiff's

- OPINION AND ORDER

and

Callahan.

affidavit,

the

Regardless,
court

finds

upon
that

plaintiff

is

Accordingly,

unable

to

afford

the

cost

of

this

action.

IT IS ORDERED that the provisional in forma pauperis

status given plaintiff is confirmed.

This action may go forward

without the payment of fees.
Federal law authorizes federal courts to review cases filed in

forma

pauper~s

to

determine

if

the

complaint

is

"frivolous

or

malicious" or "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted."

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). If the court finds that the

complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact or fails to state
a claim, the court may dismiss the action.
v . Wi 11 i ams ,

490 U. S.

319,

325

( 1989) .

Id.; see also Neitzke

The court must liberally

construe a pro se plaintiff's complaint and permit amendment unless
the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc)

I

find plaintiff's complaint deficient in several respects.
First, plaintiff's complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(a), which

requir~s

plaintiff to set forth his

claim in a short and plain statement showing that he is entitled to
relief.

Plaintiff's

rambling

allegations

against

the

three

individual defendants and the Benton County Circuit Court do not
correlate with his two causes of action alleging that defendant
Kemper improperly convened a grand jury and wrote an overbroad no­
contact order in violation of his First Amendment rights.
Second, plaintiff's allegations fail to support federal court

2

- OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff generally complains of retaliation and

jurisdiction.

malicious prosecution on the part of defendants Kemper,
and Brenner and seeks declaratory relief.

Callahan

Plaintiff's allegations

pertain to a pending criminal action against him in state court and
a civil action plaintiff filed against Callahan in state court.
Thus, plaintiff essentially seeks federal court interference with
or invalidation of pending state court proceedings that implicate
important state interests.
965,

971-73,

975

See Gilbertson v. Albright,

381 F.3d

However,

"federal

(9th Cir.

2004)

(en banc).

courts should abstain from intervening in pending state judicial
proceedings

out

of

deference

Kleenwell

federalism."

Inc.

v.

Here

that

resolution

find

declaratory

relief

the

Biohazard

Consultants,
I

to

Nelson,

interests
Waste

48 F.3d 391,

&
393

of plaintiff's

of

comity

General
(9th Cir.

federal

and

Ecology
1995).

claims

would interfere directly with pending

for

state

court proceedings involving plaintiff and therefore abstention and
dismissal is appropriate.
Generally,
amend a
court.

Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 975.

a pro se plaintiff is

complaint

and

cure. any deficiencies

identified by the

However, for the reasons explained above, the deficiencies

cannot be cured in this case.

III
III

3

given the opportunity to

- OPINION AND ORDER

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,
Brenner's

and

the

Call

GRANTED and pIa

,s

reasons
motions

set
to

dismiss

iff's claims against all de

DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dat

day of June, 2011.

Ann Aiken
United States District

4

forth

- OPINION AND ORDER

defendants
5,

6)

are

s are HEREBY