Doe et al v. City of Eugene et al

Filing 52

ORDER: Adopting in part and not adopting in part Findings and Recommendation 47 . This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. See formal ORDER. Signed on 4/6/2016 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JANE DOE and JEAN COE [fictitious names],
Plaintiffs,

v.
CITY OF EUGENE, PETE KERNS, and
JENNIFER BILLS,
Defendants.

Marianne Dugan
Attorney at Law
259 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 200-D
Eugene, Oregon 97404
Attorney for plaintiffs
Matthew J. Kalmanson
Hart Wagner, LLP
1000 SW Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Attorney for defendants.

PAGE 1 - ORDER

Case No. 6:15-cv-00154-JR
ORDER

AIKEN, Judge:
Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") on January 21,
2016. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's F&R, the district court must make a de nova
determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B); McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff

timely filed objections (doc. 49), and defendants filed a response (doc. 50). I have, therefore, given
the file of this case a de nova review.
I disagree with Judge Coffin's analysis of whether plaintiffs' claims under Monell v.
Department ofSocial Services of City ofNew York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), are barred by the statute

of limitations. For statute of limitations purposes, a Monell claim accrues not when the plaintiff
becomes aware of the underlying constitutional injury but when "it was clear or should have been
clear that a policy or custom of [the municipality] caused the wrongful act." Matheny v. Clackamas
Cnty., 2012 WL 171015, *5 (D. Or. Jan. 20, 2012). Accordingly, I decline to adopt the portion of

the F &R addressing the statute of limitations.
In all other respects, I adopt Judge Coffin's analysis. I agree plaintiffs have not sufficiently
pleaded any of their claims. I also agree dismissal with prejudice is warranted because plaintiffs
have failed to cure the deficiencies in the complaint after multiple opportunities to do so.
I ADOPT IN PART and DO NOT ADOPT IN PART Judge Coffin's F&R (doc. 47) as
follows: (1) I do not adopt the portion of the F&R regarding the statute oflimitations for a Monell
claim, and (2) I adopt the remaining portions of the F &R. Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 40)
is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
PAGE 2 - ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this

b"::yof A~
Ann Aiken
District Judge

PAGE 3 - ORDER