Gilliland v. Eason et al
ORDER: Plaintiff's Complaint (# 2 ) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Should Plaintiff wish to continue with this case, he must file an amended complaint within 30 days that: (1) cures the deficiencies with his prior Complaint; ( 2) names all Defendants in the caption; (3) clearly, legibly, and concisely describes how each named Defendant acted under color of state law and personally deprived him of a federal right; (4) does not incorporate any prior document by reference; an d (5) is on the form provided by the Court. Plaintiff's failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. Signed on 05/09/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 05/09/2022 with Prisoner Pro Se Civil Rights Complaint form.) (bd)
Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ROBERT R. GILLIBRAND,
Case No. 6:22-cv-00496-MO
ORDER TO DISMISS
DEPUTY EASON, et al.,
MOSMAN, District Judge.
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a
separate Order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in
Plaintiff has filed a somewhat rambling Complaint which is
not entirely legible in which he alleges that various public and
1 - ORDER TO DISMISS
Page 2 of 7
Hospital in January 2022. Among his claims, Plaintiff appears to
allege that the transport van was too cold, the hospital was too
hospital and while he was at the hospital, the medical personnel
at a hospital in Linn County “forced” an intravenous needle into
catheterized him. He also claims to have suffered various civil
rights violations while incarcerated at the Linn County Jail. He
seeks approximately $7,000,000 in damages as well as injunctive
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court is required to
screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental
entity, officer, or employee and must dismiss a complaint if the
action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
1915A(b). In order to state a claim, Plaintiff's Complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter which, when accepted as true,
gives rise to a plausible inference that Defendants violated his
2 - ORDER TO DISMISS
Page 3 of 7
(2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 556-57
suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper if it
appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claims that would entitle him to relief. Ortez v.
Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 1996); Cervantes
v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993). Because
pleadings liberally and affords him the benefit of any doubt.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Ortez, 88 F.3d at
As an initial matter, “Pleadings and other documents must
be typewritten, neatly printed, or otherwise legibly reproduced,
using blue or black ink.” LR 10-1(a). In reviewing plaintiff's
Complaint, the Court finds certain portions of the handwritten
pleading to not be sufficiently legible in violation of Local
short, plain statement of his claims. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
3 - ORDER TO DISMISS
Page 4 of 7
P. 8(a), a complaint shall include "a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). 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
prejudice due to a litigant's failure to comply with Rule 8(a)
if meaningful, less drastic sanctions have been explored). The
requirement that a pleading be "simple, concise, and direct,"
dismissal independent of Rule 12(b)(6). McHenry v. Renne, 84
F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). Where Plaintiff has not clearly
and concisely set out his claims, it is difficult to ascertain
the precise nature of the claims he is attempting to bring and
to attribute particular conduct to each named Defendant. 1
It is also difficult to discern which named Defendant is employed by which
particular agency. The Court will attempt to assist pro se plaintiffs with
service but, to do so, it must be clear which particular Defendant is
employed by which municipality/agency.
4 - ORDER TO DISMISS
Page 5 of 7
It is also well established that a plaintiff wishing to
violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by
federal statute; (2) proximately caused; (3) by conduct of a
person; (4) acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates,
947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). A plaintiff "must plead
that each . . . defendant, through the official's own individual
actions, has violated the Constitution."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
676; see also Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.
1989) ("Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing
private entities and private individuals (such as the Albany
General Hospital and its staff) who are not state actors. He
also might wish to bring suit against the Linn County Sheriff on
a respondeat superior theory of liability, as it is not clear
from his Complaint how she personally participated in any of the
deprivations he alleges. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting
superior theory of liability, he may not do so. Monell v. New
5 - ORDER TO DISMISS
Page 6 of 7
(1978); Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045.
Moreover, various portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint fail to
describe how each named Defendant was individually responsible
for the actions he describes. For example, Plaintiff alleges
that unidentified “and deputies would open tray slot and drop
sack lunch on floor for approximately 3 days” and that “heat was
turned down due to Covid and middle of winter months w/only 1
blanket.” Complaint (#2), p. 6. This fails to identify how a
particular named Defendant violated a federally-protected right.
For all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
Complaint (#2) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Should
deficiencies with his prior Complaint; (2) names all Defendants
in the caption; (3) clearly, legibly, and concisely describes
how each named Defendant acted under color of state law and
incorporate any prior document by reference; and (5) is on the
6 - ORDER TO DISMISS
Page 7 of 7
form provided by the Court. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will
result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a civil
rights form for his use.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 - ORDER TO DISMISS
Michael W. Mosman
United States District Judge
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?