Opinion
3:23-cv-00516-YY
06-26-2023
EMMANUEL ADEYINKA, Plaintiff, v. NORCOR CORRECTIONS, Defendants.
ORDER
Youlee Yim You United States Magistrate Judge.
Pro se plaintiff Emmanuel Adeyinka has filed three complaints in this case, yet none of them states a claim for relief. Therefore, the case should be dismissed.
This court previously granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Order, ECF 8. 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.
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).
In his one-paragraph third amended complaint, plaintiff alleges he was released from “NORCOR Correction facility” on February 28, 2023, with $80, which he claims is less than what he had when he entered the institution. Plaintiff alleges he was told that he was being charged for “room and board[] . . . because they are a private jail and the state do[es]n't fund them.” He claims “[t]hat is a lie,” and this has caused “economical and financial abuse” and violations of his 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 13th Amendment rights. He also claims a 14th Amendment equal protection violation.
Presumably, plaintiff means the Northern Oregon Regional Correctional Facility, which a “regional correctional facility jointly operated by Wasco, Gilliam, Hood River, and Sherman Counties.” Rutherford v. NORCOR Corr. Facility, No. 3:21-CV-01257-MO, 2021 WL 4317149, at *1 n.1 (D. Or. Sept. 22, 2021).
In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that when he was transferred from Clackamas County Jail to NORCOR, he had $165, and claims NORCOR took “half of my money.” Second Am. Compl., ECF 7. He also alleged that he spent $53 on commissary items, not knowing he would “be released that day,” and “I never seen any of the commissary that I ordered.” Id.
Plaintiff fails to explain how any of these constitutional provisions were violated. “The mere recitation . . . of various sections of the United States Constitution . . . is insufficient.” Arunga v. Am. C.L. Union Found., No. CIV. 09-6175-AA, 2009 WL 3274784, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 9, 2009), aff'd, 441 Fed.Appx. 469 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (holding “threadbare” and “conclusory statements . . . do not suffice”). Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to allege a valid claim for relief, but has not done so. Therefore, dismissal without prejudice is warranted.
Moreover, deductions from an inmate's assets do not necessarily run afoul of the constitution. See Johnson v. Gibbons, 474 Fed.Appx. 585, 586 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding the district court properly dismissed Johnson's action because the deductions for room and board were effected by a valid act of the Nevada legislature, and the legislative process satisfies the requirements of procedural due process) (citing Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257, 1261 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[G]overnmental decisions which affect large areas and are not directed at one or a few individuals do not give rise to the constitutional procedural due process requirements of individual notice and hearing; general notice as provided by law is sufficient.”); see, e.g., O.R.S. §§ 179.610(2) & (4), 179.620(1) (establishing liability of persons in state institutions, including the Department of Corrections, for the full cost of care, including room and board). Also, debts may sometimes be collected from inmate assets. See e.g., O.R.S. 423.105(2)(a) directing Oregon Department of Corrections to collect court-ordered financial obligations from adults in custody); O.A.R. 291-158-0065(2) (recognizing that Oregon Department of Corrections “will comply with applicable state and federal law in regards to collection of non-DOC debt that has been established or that DOC has been charged with collecting”). These statutory provisions appear to apply to individuals incarcerated with the Oregon Department of Corrections, but there may be authority that allowed for the collection of money from plaintiff's jail account. In fact, in this case, plaintiff filed an exhibit showing he owes $1,255 in court-ordered obligations from his 2020 Sherman County misdemeanor case. Exhibit, ECF 15.
Notably, this is the 12th case plaintiff has filed with this court. Many of his cases have been dismissed for failure to state a claim and some with prejudice because they were frivolous. He has also filed over 20 cases in the Southern District of Texas.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because plaintiff has failed to allege a claim for relief and establish this court's subject matter jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed without prejudice.
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due Monday, July 17, 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.