Oblad v. Utah State Prison et al
Filing
64
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.S. §1915(e)(2)(B) (2019). This action is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 10/31/2019. (jds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
BRIAN OBLAD,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
& DISMISSAL ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF UTAH et al.,
Case No. 2:17-CV-95 DB
Defendants.
District Judge Dee Benson
Plaintiff, Brian Oblad, proceeds in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915 (2019), in this
pro se civil-rights suit, see 42 id. § 1983. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s Sixth Amended
Complaint and concludes that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A. Standard of Review
This Court shall dismiss claims in a complaint filed in forma pauperis that are frivolous,
malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 id. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
"Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that
the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an[other]
opportunity to amend.” Perkins v. Kan. Dep't of Corrs., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999).
When reviewing a complaint’s sufficiency, the Court "presumes all of plaintiff's factual
allegations are true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court construes his pleadings "liberally" and holds them
"to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Id. at 1110. However,
"[t]he broad reading of the plaintiff’s complaint does not relieve [him] of the burden of alleging
sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based." Id. While Plaintiff need not
describe every fact in specific detail, "conclusory allegations without supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based." Id.
B. Analysis
Plaintiff asserts Defendants State of Utah, Larson, Strong, Dietrich, Smith, Daniels,
Zimmerman, and John Does violated his federal civil rights by discarding his property.
1. State Immunity
The Eleventh Amendment prevents "suits against a state unless it has waived its
immunity or consented to suit, or if Congress has validly abrogated the state's immunity." Ray v.
McGill, No. CIV-06-0334-HE, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51632, at *8 (W.D. Okla. July 26, 2006)
(unpublished) (citing Lujan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 60 F.3d 1511, 1522 (10th Cir. 1995);
Eastwood v. Dep't of Corrs., 846 F.2d 627, 631 (10th Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff asserts no basis for
determining that the State has waived its immunity or that it has been abrogated by Congress.
Because claims against the State are precluded by Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court has
no subject-matter jurisdiction to consider them. See id. at *9. The State is therefore dismissed.
2. John Does
John Does are dismissed from this action “because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
[do] not permit . . . actions against unnamed defendants following a suitable length of time for
the plaintiff to identify the John Does.” Culp v. Williams, 456 F. App’x 718, 720 (10th Cir.
2012). There is “no excuse for [Plaintiff’s] failure to identify the unnamed defendants after more
than a year into the case.” Id. Here, Plaintiff’s action is more than 2.5 years old and is on the
2
seventh iteration of his complaint. That is more than enough time for Plaintiff to “specify names
or detailed descriptions, along with exact titles, of John Does defendants,” as Plaintiff was
ordered to do. (Doc. No. 60.) John Doe defendants are thus dismissed.
3. Random Deprivation
Plaintiff asserts remaining defendants discarded his property (e.g., mail, artwork, hygiene
items, clothing) without due process and resulting in cruel-and-unusual punishment. However, “a
random and unauthorized deprivation of property under color of state law . . . does not give rise
to a § 1983 claim if there is an adequate state post-conviction remedy.” Frazier v. Flores, 571 F.
App’x 673, 675 (10th Cir. 2014) (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).
Plaintiff’s claims fit under this rubric: First, he has not alleged “his property was seized
pursuant to a consistent policy and not just a random, unauthorized act.” Id. at 676. Second, there
could be no hearing (in keeping with due-process precepts) because “individual correctional
officers’ alleged practice of arbitrarily seizing inmates’ property with scant justification is not the
type of ‘established state procedure’ under which the state can ‘predict precisely when the loss
will occur’ and thus provide a hearing beforehand.” Id. (quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527,
541 (1981)). Third, Plaintiff has not alleged that Utah does not have options for him to pursue a
remedy for Defendants’ alleged intentional torts. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 535-36. Finally,
Plaintiff was specifically advised of the need to state facts to support this allegation. (Doc. No.
60, at 2.) Still, he has not done so.
3
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Sixth Amended Complaint is DISMISSED
with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.S. §
1915(e)(2)(B) (2019). This action is CLOSED.
DATED this 31st day of October, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
DEE BENSON
United States District Judge
4
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?