Opinion
3:23-cv-00316-YY 3:23-cv-00317-YY
09-11-2023
EMMANUEL ADEYINKA, Plaintiff, v. EMPIRE TOWING AND TRANSPORT, FINDINGS AND CLACKAMAS COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, RECOMMENDATIONS BURLINGTON, MATT ROACH, BRETT ETHINGTON, and LETITIA WALKERS, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Youlee Yim You United States Magistrate Judge
Pro se plaintiff Emmanuel Adeyinka has filed two cases-case no. 3:23-cv-00316-YY and case no. 3:23-cv-00317-YY. Because the cases involve common questions of law or fact, they have been consolidated.
Plaintiff has been afforded the opportunity to file multiple complaints. See Compl., ECF 2; Am. Compl., ECF 12; Third Am. Compl., ECF 14; Fourth Am. Compl., ECF 32; Fourth Am. Compl., ECF 38. And the court has repeatedly issued orders explaining the deficiencies in plaintiff's complaints and given him leave to cure the defects. See Order (March 13, 2023), ECF 11 (order on amended complaint); Order (May 30, 2023), ECF 32 (order on third amended complaint).
Plaintiff has now filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, but it still suffers from defects that cannot be cured by amendment. Moreover, plaintiff has settled his claims against the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office and the named deputies. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Relief (ECF 39) contending that the settlement agreement is invalid. However, the plain terms of the settlement agreement foreclose plaintiff's motion. Therefore, plaintiff's claims against all defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.
I. Relevant Law
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) has been granted. ECF 7. The IFP statute provides that “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may include in the alternative or different types of relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). “Rule 8 does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2006) (citations omitted). “A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
In addition to determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief, this court is always obligated to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over a case. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
Federal courts hold a Pro se litigant's pleadings to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987); see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam) (holding a document filed Pro se “is to be liberally construed”; a plaintiff need only give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds on which it rests) (citation omitted). “Although . . . Pro se litigant[s] . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes [their] pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995).
II. Discussion
This case arises from an incident in which plaintiff's vehicle and trailer were towed and impounded by Empire Towing and Transport (“Empire Towing”) following plaintiff's arrest by the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office on an outstanding warrant. Plaintiff has filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in which he names only Empire Towing as a defendant. Fourth Am. Compl., ECF 38. Plaintiff's previous complaints have named the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office and certain deputies as defendants (hereafter “Clackamas County defendants”). In April of 2023, plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement in which he agreed to dismiss his claims against the Clackamas County defendants in exchange for “payment to Empire Towing to secure the release from impound of plaintiff's . . . vehicle and his travel trailer.” Settlement Agreement, ECF 23. At a May 30, 2023 hearing, plaintiff confirmed that he was dismissing all claims against Clackamas County and Clackamas County Sheriff's deputies, and the court directed plaintiff to file a Fourth Amended Complaint against the remaining defendants, which plaintiff identified at the time as Empire Towing and Burlington. See ECF 24 (minutes of telephonic hearing).
Although plaintiff does not name the Clackamas County defendants in the caption of his Fourth Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that the settlement agreement with the Clackamas County defendants “is unconstitutional” and that, when he recovered his vehicle and trailer, items were broken and stolen. Fourth Am. Compl. 2, ECF 38. Plaintiff also has filed a Motion for Relief, ECF 39, in which he alleges, more specifically, that the settlement agreement is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and that the attorney for the Clackamas County defendants misrepresented to him that the vehicle and camper remained in the condition they were in before he was arrested. But according to the terms of the written settlement agreement, which plaintiff signed, plaintiff agreed to take possession of the vehicle and trailer “as-is, with no warranties or assurances from [the] County whatsoever,” including “all aspects of the vehicle or travel trailer's condition including, but not limited to, the contents, mechanical, electrical, aesthetic, operational, or functional status.” Settlement Agreement 2, ECF 23. Thus, despite what plaintiff claims he was told about the condition of the vehicle and trailer, plaintiff agreed to take possession of the vehicle and trailer “as-is” in exchange for payment of the impound fees. Accordingly, the settlement agreement is enforceable.
With respect to Empire Towing, plaintiff claims it violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as numerous other constitutional rights. Fourth Am. Compl., ECF 38. But Empire Towing is a private entity and not a state actor; therefore, the constitutional claims against it must be dismissed. See United States v. Wilson, 13 F.4th 961, 967 (9th Cir. 2021) (recognizing the “Fourth Amendment protects individuals from government actors, not private ones”); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (imposing civil liability only on an individual who “under color [of state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”).
Plaintiff also alleges violations of Portland City Code 7.24.080, which pertains to “private property impound towing.” But this Portland ordinance does not provide plaintiff with a private cause of action. Rather, the ordinance only permits the director of the Revenue Division to investigate complaints and enforce the code. See P.C.C. 7.24.020.A.
Finally, while plaintiff does not name Burlington as a defendant in the caption, to the extent plaintiff asserts claims against Burlington, they should be dismissed. Plaintiff alleges Burlington should have known his vehicle and trailer were not abandoned instead of calling to have them towed. Plaintiff relies on O.R.S. 819.110, which pertains to the custody, towing, sale, and disposal of abandoned vehicles. But, again, this statute does not provide a private cause of action. Instead, it provides a process by which an agency has authority to take a vehicle into custody. See O.R.S. 819.110(1)(a); O.R.S. 819.140.
In sum, there is an enforceable settlement agreement regarding plaintiff's claims against the Clackamas County defendants. With respect to Empire Towing and Burlington, plaintiff still fails to state a cause of action against them, despite having been given repeated opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that plaintiff will ever be able to assert a viable cause of action against these defendants. Therefore, dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate remedy with respect to all defendants. See Doe v. Fed. Dist. Ct., 467 Fed.Appx. 725, 728 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing case with prejudice where it had “good reason to believe that further amendments would be futile and prejudice the defendants”).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff's Motion for Relief (ECF 39) should be denied, and plaintiff's claims against all defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due Monday, October 02, 2023. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement.
NOTICE
These Findings and Recommendations are not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of a judgment.