Opinion
2:22-cv-1013-HZ
12-28-2022
GENE RAY BALL, Plaintiff, v. B. WASHBURN, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Marco A. Hernández United States District Judge
Pro se plaintiff Gene Ray Ball, an adult in custody (AIC) at the Two Rivers Correctional Institute (TRCI), filed this civil rights action claiming violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alternatively, defendant moves for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). The court grants defendant's motion to dismiss in part and denies his motion for a more definite statement. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his Complaint.
STANDARDS
A. Motion to Dismiss
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the claims. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “When evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations, the court must accept all material facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) will be granted if a plaintiff alleges the “grounds” of his “entitlement to relief” with nothing “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action[.]” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must “plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In other words, a complaint must state a plausible claim for relief and contain “well-pleaded facts” that “permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct[.]” Id. at 679.
Courts must liberally construe pro se pleadings. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). A court cannot dismiss a pro se complaint without first explaining to the plaintiff the deficiencies of the complaint and providing an opportunity to amend. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Department of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).
B. Motion for a More Definite Statement
“A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e). “The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired.” Id. A Rule 12(e) motion is generally left to the discretion of the court and “is proper only if the complaint is so indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the claim being asserted, meaning the complaint is so vague that the defendant cannot begin to frame a response.” Barnes v. Olive, No. 2:15-CV-00520-HZ, 2015 WL 5813193, at *2 (D. Or. Sept. 30, 2015) (citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that defendant “did [an] unwarranted strip search” on February 5, 2022, in the disciplinary segregation unit of TRCI. Compl. 7, ECF 2. Plaintiff alleges violations of his rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 3. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). See Mot 3-4, ECF 13.
1. Fourth Amendment Claim
Defendant argues for dismissal of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim on the grounds that “the facts do not appear to allege that the search was unreasonable.” Id. Defendant does not argue that plaintiff has failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim or that his claim lacks clarity. Instead, defendant asserts, “[w]ithout facts tending to show that the search was unreasonable, plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim should be dismissed.” Id. at 4. However, defendant's argument goes to the sufficiency of the evidence and whether plaintiff can ultimately “show that the state actor's conduct was an unreasonable search[.]” Sandoval v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509, 515 (9th Cir. 2018). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss only “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim[,]” Navarro, 250 F.3d at 732, and “the court must accept all material facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Wilson, 668 F.3d at 1140. Therefore, construing the Complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently and plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment claim based the strip search incident and denies defendant's motion to dismiss that claim. See Monical v. Jackson Cnty., No. 1:17-CV-00476-YY, 2021 WL 1110197, at *10 (D. Or. Mar. 23, 2021) (denying the defendants' motion to dismiss because the plaintiff alleged he was subjected to “humiliating strip searches without real justification” and “strip searches that are ‘excessive, vindictive, harassing, or unrelated to any legitimate penological interest' are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment”) (citation omitted).
Because defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim is denied on the grounds that plaintiff has adequately alleged that claim, defendant's motion for a more definite statement regarding that claim is denied as moot. See Johnson v. King, No. CV094183DSFFMOX, 2009 WL 10675723, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2009) (denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and therefore denying the motion for a more definite statement “as moot”).
2. Remaining Claims
Defendant moves to dismiss any remaining claims plaintiff seeks to assert because “[t]he basis for [plaintiff's] Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims are not clearly developed in the complaint.” Mot. 4. The court agrees. Unlike plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim, the Complaint does not assert a claim that is plausible on its face under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments and does not contain factual allegations that might imply additional violations of his rights. However, plaintiff filed a Declaration, see ECF 3, and the attachments to the Complaint consist of plaintiff's grievance records related to the strip search incident, and those records indicate that plaintiff may have claims arising out of the strip search incident based on other constitutional provisions. See Compl. 13-25, ECF 2. As defendant points out, plaintiff described the strip search as “sexual abuse” to TRCI officials, Mot. 4, and plaintiff alleged that defendant sought to punish him for having “a prayer rug on the floor and a radio hanging on the wall.” Compl. 17. If plaintiff seeks to assert violations of his rights based on those allegations or any other conduct related to the strip search incident, he must provide a “short and plain statement of [each] claim” as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The Court therefore grants defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's purported claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, without prejudice and with leave to amend. See Crockett v. Portland Police, No. 3:19-CV-01090-HZ, 2019 WL 5445750, at *6 (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2019) (dismissing the pro se plaintiff's civil rights claim without prejudice and granting him leave to file an amended complaint where it was “possible that [the] [p]laintiff could add sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim”).
Because plaintiff's claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments are dismissed with leave to amend, the court denies as moot the motion for a more definite statement regarding those claims. See Zody v. Microsoft Corp., No. 12-CV-00942-YGR, 2012 WL 1747844, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2012) (granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims with leave to amend and denying as moot the motion for a more definite statement as to those claims).
CONCLUSION
In sum, defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim and GRANTED regarding all other claims plaintiff seeks to assert based on the strip search incident. Regarding all claims, defendant's motion for a more definite statement is DENIED as moot.
Accordingly, the court orders plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff is advised that the Amended Complaint must state the exact civil rights that he claims have been violated and the underlying facts regarding each claim, including: (a) the name of each person who caused, participated in, witnessed, or was aware of the wrongful actions; (b) the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged actions and information as to what actually occurred; and (c) any injuries or harm that plaintiff may have suffered as a result of the wrongful actions. Plaintiff is further advised that the Amended Complaint will operate as a complete substitute for the present complaint, not as a supplement. Finally, plaintiff is advised that if he fails to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of this order, this action will go forward as to plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim only.
IT IS SO ORDERED.