Strubel v. SAIF Corporation et al
Filing
16
ORDER AND OPINION: The Notice, which the Court construes as an Amended Complaint, 15 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court again defers ruling on plaintiff's Application to Proceed IFP 2 . Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days of the date of this order. Signed on 10/23/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 10/23/2019.) (ck)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
JACK ALFRED STRUBEL, JR.,
Civ. No. 6:18-cv-00881-AA
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff,
v.
SAIF CORPORATION and CHEMEKETA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
Defendants.
AIKEN, District Judge.
The Court previously dismissed plaintiffs complaint without prejudice
because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to establish this Court's
subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. (doc. 10) The Court did so in considering
plaintiffs Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP"). (doc. 2) In screening
plaintiffs complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court found that
plaintiff failed to allege either a federal cause of action or diversity between the
Page 1 -OPINION & ORDER
parties. The Court also outlined other deficiencies and granted plaintiff leave to file
an amended complaint.
As part of its previous order, the Court partially granted plaintiffs request
for appointment of pro bono counsel. Counsel was appointed for the limited purpose
of reviewing the case with plaintiff and discuss his options to proceed. (doc. 11)
That appointment has occurred and been completed.
(doc. 12)
Plaintiff
subsequently filed a notice styled as "Opinions and Regulations." (doc. 15) In the
interest of fairness, the Court construes this document as an amended complaint.
As outlined the last order, plaintiff alleges that he suffered an injury in the
course of his employment with defendant Chemeketa Community College and then
tried to access state provided worker's compensation benefits. It is unclear whether
he was denied or granted benefits. He does allege that he was only examined by
one doctor provided by defendant, SAIF Corporation ("SAIF''). Plaintiff alleges that
he requested to be seen by a second doctor, but the request was denied. Plaintiff
alleges that he continues to suffer from his injuries, and he expects "to be
compensated for this trauma in the amount of 5 million dollars." Pl's. Not. 2.
In his notice, plaintiff alleges that his claim is based on a "constitutional
right to be given a second opinion." Id. The Court notes that it can find no such
right in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, or case law. Again, the limited
nature of the factual allegations makes it difficult for the Court to determine
precisely what happened regarding plaintiffs injury and the actions of defendant
SAIF. At a minimum, this subsequent notice fails to satisfy the requirement that a
Page 2 -OPINION & ORDER
civil complaint must include a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Further, plaintiff claims to have "went through State Court, appeals court
and the Supreme Court for the State of Oregon."
Pl's Not. 2.
There are not
sufficient facts in plaintiffs filings to discern whether he lost that case or if that
determination is at the core of the present action. As mentioned in the previous
order, it is likely that this action is barred by the Rooher-Feldman doctrine which
bars federal courts, other than the U.S. Supreme Court, from hearing cases aimed
at correcting state court judgments. Rooher v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 41516 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n. 16
(1983).
The Court remains aware of the latitude given to pro se litigants. Thus, the
Court grants plaintiff leave to draft another amended complaint. In drafting his
amended complaint, plaintiff should take care to include sufficient factual detail to
allow the Court to better understand his claims, although not so much detail that
the amended complaint is not "short and plain," as required by Rule 8. Plaintiff is
also reminded that he should plead an appropriate legal basis which would allow
this Court to exercise its limited jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Notice, which the Court construes as an
Amended Complaint, (doc. 15) is DISMISSED "WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court
again defers ruling on plaintiffs Application to Proceed IFP. (doc. 2) Plaintiff is
Page 3 -OPINION & ORDER
granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days of the date of
this order.
It is so ORDERED this
.::?3 ~y of October, 2019.
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge
Page 4 -OPINION & 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?