Opinion
CIVIL 2:21-cv-00398-YY
11-23-2021
DARRIN VAUGHN DAILY, Plaintiff, v. L. HALBERT, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
YOU, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, an adult in custody at the Oregon State Correctional Institution (“OSCI”), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pro se. Currently before the Court is Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 16). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion should be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff's claims arise out of his efforts to develop and market a board game. Plaintiff alleges that although he received permission in 2012 to develop the game, Defendant Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution (“EOCI”) Correctional Officer Brandon Anglin issued a misconduct report against Plaintiff in July 2019 for running an unauthorized business. Plaintiff alleges that Anglin, “supported by [Defendant] L. Halpert, ” charged him with rule violations and ordered him to cease communications with an attorney and another individual outside the institution. Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to re-apply for his business authorization following a prison disciplinary hearing.
In addition to Defendants Anglin and Halbert, Plaintiff names eight other individual Defendants based on their responses to his prison grievances and/or due to their perceived supervisory roles: Governor Kate Brown, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, Oregon Department of Corrections Director Colette Peters, EOCI Assistant Superintendent of Security Tom Lemens, EOCI Grievance Coordinator Nina Sobotta, EOCI Correctional Captain Robert Rabb, and EOCI Principal Executive/Managers Ron Miles and Andrea Neistadt. Plaintiff also names the “State of Oregon” and EOCI as Defendants.
Defendants State of Oregon and EOCI move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on two grounds: (1) they are not proper defendants for Plaintiff's § 1983 claims, and (2) they have not consented to suit and are entitled to sovereign immunity. The individually named Defendants, except Defendants Anglin and Halbert, move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them on the grounds that Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient personal involvement for § 1983 liability to attach.
LEGAL STANDARDS
To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must allege facts that, when accepted as true, give rise to a plausible inference that the defendants violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotations omitted).
When a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Moreover, before dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, a court must supply the plaintiff with a statement of the complaint's deficiencies. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1988); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). A pro se litigant will be given leave to amend the complaint unless it is clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
DISCUSSION
I. Defendants State of Oregon and EOCI
To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law by a person acting under color of state law. L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1992); Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 1989). The definition of “person” for the purposes of § 1983 does not include state governments or their agencies. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
Moreover, it is well established that absent waiver, the Eleventh Amendment bars a suit in federal court against either a state or an agency acting under its control. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). Except for suits for prospective relief filed against state officials, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit regardless of the relief sought. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984).
Plaintiff's claims against the State of Oregon and EOCI are barred by principles of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim against the State of Oregon or EOCI upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and allowing Plaintiff to amend as to these two defendants would be futile.
II. Individual Defendants Brown, Rosenblum, Peters, Lemens, Sobotta, Rabb, Miles, and Neistadt
“Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant” in the alleged constitutional deprivation. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Arnold v. Int'l. Business Machines, Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). Liability may also be imposed if the defendant sets into “‘motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.'” Gini v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 40 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Merritt v. Mackey, 827 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987)).
“‘A supervisor may be liable if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.'” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-04 (5th Cir. 1987)), abrogated on other grounds by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991); Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. However, it is well established that § 1983 “does not impose liability upon state officials for the acts of their subordinates under a respondeat superior theory of liability.” Monell v. New York City Dep't. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978); Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045.
Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Sobotta and Miles are rooted solely in their handling of Plaintiff's prison grievances. However, handling a grievance or appeal is an insufficient basis for liability under § 1983. See Fairley v. Shelton, 664 Fed.Appx. 616, 617 (9th Cir. 2016); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Brown, Rosenblum, Peters, Lemens, Rabb, and Neistadt are rooted in their supervisory roles. Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing that any of these defendants were personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivation of Plaintiff's rights, or a sufficient causal connection between their alleged wrongful conduct and a constitutional deprivation. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Sobotta, Miles, Brown, Rosenblum, Peters, Lemens, Rabb, and Neistadt should be dismissed. However, plaintiff should be granted leave to file an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies of his claims against these defendants.
Because Plaintiff must be granted leave to amend, his argument in response to Defendants' motion that they should not be dismissed so Plaintiff may proceed with discovery on his claims against these Defendants lacks merit.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 16) should be GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants State of Oregon and EOCI should be DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Brown, Rosenblum, Sobotta, Miles, Peters, Lemens, Rabb, and Neistadt should be DISMISSED with leave to file an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies noted above within 30 days of the court's final ruling on this motion.
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due within 21 days. 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 Recommendation will go under advisement.