Opinion
3:22-cv-01980-YY
03-15-2023
OMARR J. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Youlee Yim You, United States Magistrate Judge.
FINDINGS
On December 22, 2022, pro se plaintiff Omarr J. Johnson filed a Complaint (ECF 1) along with an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF 2). The court granted plaintiff's IFP application and issued an Order to Show Cause (ECF 5) directing plaintiff to explain in writing by January 31, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Alternatively, the court allowed plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the defects outlined in the Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 29, 2022. ECF 7. Because the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief, this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
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 Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges claims against the City of Portland, the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, and the Multnomah County District Attorney's Office. He claims that his civil rights were violated under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Am. Compl. 5-6, ECF 7. Plaintiff cites 59 different bases for his constitutional claims, which appear to be copied from a government website called Constitution Annotated. See https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/ (last visited February 7, 2023). He also cites numerous cases, some dating back to the 1800s. Am. Compl. 5-6, ECF 7.
Despite the court's previous admonition to plaintiff that his complaint failed to contain any dates or specific allegations as to how defendants violated his rights, plaintiff has included no short and plain statement of his claims. Instead, this time, he refers the court to an “Attached Statement of Claims,” which consists of 90 pages of attachments. These attachments include documents related to (1) a name change matter in Clark County District Court, (2) a criminal case for unlawful possession of a firearm in Multnomah County Circuit Court, (3) a contempt proceeding related to a domestic violence case in Multnomah County Circuit Court, (4) a criminal case for unlawful possession of a firearm and theft in Multnomah County Circuit Court, and (5) a criminal case for domestic violence in Multnomah County Circuit Court. Plaintiff has also included emails and photos of text messages. A number of these documents contain handwritten notes, presumably written by plaintiff.
This confusing array of documents does not satisfy Rule 8. See Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 415 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the complaint, which, including attachments, exceeded 70 pages in length, were confusing and conclusory and not in compliance with Rule 8). Because plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement showing he is entitled to relief, this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This case should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due Wednesday, March 01, 2023. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date.
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.