Comfort
Filing
35
ORDER: Motion to Dismiss 23 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff, after conducting further discovery, is given leave to amend his Complaint as to the actual notice requirement by 01/07/2010. Ordered and Signed on 12/07/2009 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)
<![CDATA[
FILEIf09 DEC 071S(llI.JSOC·ORt1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
E V E R E T T J. C O M F O R T , Plaintiff, v. J A C K S O N C O U N T Y ; A R L Y N S. GRANGER; KORBY MESSER; and GARY CLARK Defendants. Clarke, M a g i s t r a t e Judge:
Case Number CV 09-3060-CL
ORDER
P l a i n t i f f E v e r e t t C o m f o r t ("Plaintiff") filed a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s J a c k s o n C o u n t y , A r l y n G r a n g e r , K o r b y M e s s e r , a n d G a r y Clark. P l a i n t i f f m a k e s t h r e e c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f ( 1 ) f o r v i o l a t i o n o f h i s c i v i l r i g h t s u n d e r 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 ; (2) t h e O r e g o n T o r t C l a i m s A c t , O r . Rev. Stat. § 3 0 . 2 6 0 ( O T C A ) for c o m m o n l a w assault, battery, i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s , a n d n e g l i g e n c e f r o m J a c k s o n C o u n t y ; a n d (3) f o r a c t i o n s o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f t h e i r p u b l i c e m p l o y m e n t o r d u t i e s from i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s Granger, M e s s e r , a n d Clark. ( F i r s t A m . C o m p I . ( " A m . C o m p I . " ) ~~ 1 7 - 2 7 . )
Defendants filed this motion to dismiss the second claim for r e l i e f under the O T C A arguing that P l a i n t i f f has failed to state a claim upon which r e l i e f m a y be granted u n d e r Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). F o r the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted, and the P l a i n t i f f s second claim for r e l i e f is dismissed without prejudice. P l a i n t i f f is given leave to a m e n d h i s s e c o n d c l a i m for r e l i e f b y J a n u a r y 7 , 2 0 1 0 .
I.
Factual Background
P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s h e w a s b e a t e n w h i l e i n c u s t o d y i n t h e J a c k s o n C o u n t y j a i l o n J u l y 7,
2007. (Am. Compi. ~ 1.) H e alleges that he was left to lie alone i n the holding cell several hours after the beating and suffered substantial physical injury and pain and emotional distress as a result o f the beating being left to lie alone. H e was also hospitalized for four days immediately f o l l o w i n g t h e i n c i d e n t , s t a r t i n g o n J u l y 7 , 2 0 0 7 . P l a i n t i f f alleges D e f e n d a n t s K o r b y M e s s e r a n d G a r y C l a r k a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e b e a t i n g a n d D e f e n d a n t G r a n g e r w a s i n c h a r g e o f j a i l at t h e t i m e a n d participated i n the events surrounding the beating. (Am. Compi.
~
1.)
P l a i n t i f f notified S h e r i f f Michael S.Winters o f his inent to sue b y letter dated October 25, 2007, addressed to 787 West Eighth Street, Medford, Oregon 97501. (Am. CompI., Ex. B.) P l a i n t i f f filed his complaint on July 2, 2009, and issued summons to defendants o n August 3, 2009, w h i c h were returned o n August 20, 2009. (Dkt. Nos. 8 and 9.) O n August 25, 2009, P l a i n t i f f filed his first amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss P l a i n t i f f s second claim for r e l i e f on October 7, 2009. Defendants contend that P l a i n t i f f failed to provide notice to Jackson County as required and thus has n o t alleged facts for r e l i e f under the OTCA. (Mot. to Dismiss Second Claim for R e l i e f ("Mot. to Dismiss") 3-5.) Order 2
II.
Legal Standards
On a motion to dismiss, the court must review the sufficiency o f the complaint. Scheuer
v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 2 3 2 , 2 3 6 (1974). All allegations o f material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. American Family Ass'n, Inc. v. City & County o f San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2002). A complaint or a claim in a complaint may be dismissed as a matter o f law for two reasons: (1) lack o f cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 5 3 0 , 5 3 3 - 3 4 (9th Cir. 1984). When a court considers a motion to dismiss, all allegations o f the complaint are construed in the p l a i n t i f f s favor. Sun Saving & Loan Ass'n v. Dierdoff, 825 F.2d 187, 191 (9th Cir. 1987). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) will be granted i f plaintiff alleges the "grounds" o f his "entitlement to r e l i e f ' with nothing "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation o f the elements o f a cause ofaction[.]" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, (2007) (internal quotation omitted). "Factual allegations must b e enough to raise a right to r e l i e f above t h e s p e c u l a t i v e level (even i f doubtful in fact) on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true " Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). A plaintiff must
plead "sufficient fact[s], accepted as true, to 'state a claim to r e l i e f that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "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." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Order 3
III.
P l a i n t i f f F a i l e d t o P r o v i d e N o t i c e U n d e r the O T C A
The sole cause o f action under state law for any tort o f officers, employees, o r agents o f a public b o d y acting within the scope o f their employment o r duties, as alleged here, is an action against the public b o d y under the OTCA. Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.265(1). Defendants argue that P l a i n t i f f failed to satisfy the notice provision o f the OTCA. The O T C A explains formal or actual notice is required within 180 days after the alleged loss o r i n j u r y , (5) Formal notice o f claim shall be given b y mail o r personal delivery (a) I f t h e claim is against the state o r an officer, employee o r agent thereof, to the o f f i c e o f t h e D i r e c t o r o f the O r e g o n D e p a r t m e n t o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S e r v i c e s . (b) I f t h e c l a i m i s a g a i n s t a l o c a l p u b l i c b o d y o r a n o f f i c e r , e m p l o y e e o r a g e n t thereof, to the public b o d y at its principal administrative office, to any m e m b e r o f the governing b o d y o f the public body, or to an attorney designated b y the governing b o d y as its general counsel. (6) Actual notice o f claim is any communication b y which any individual to w h o m notice m a y b e given as provided in subsection (5) o f this section o r any p e r s o n r e s p o n s i b l e for a d m i n i s t e r i n g t o r t c l a i m s o n b e h a l f o f t h e p u b l i c b o d y acquires actual knowledge o f the time, place and circumstances giving rise to the claim, where the communication is such that a reasonable person would conclude that a particular person intends to assert a claim against the public b o d y o r an o f f i c e r , e m p l o y e e o r a g e n t o f t h e p u b l i c b o d y . A p e r s o n r e s p o n s i b l e for administering tort claims on b e h a l f o f a public b o d y is a person who, acting within the scope o f the person's responsibility, as an officer, employee o r agent o f a public b o d y o r as an employee o r agent o f an insurance carrier insuring the public b o d y for risks within the scope o f ORS 30.260 to 30.300, engages i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n , n e g o t i a t i o n , a d j u s t m e n t o r defense o f c l a i m s w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f ORS 30.260 to 30.300, o r in furnishing o r accepting forms for claimants to p r o v i d e c l a i m i n f o r m a t i o n , o r i n s u p e r v i s i n g a n y o f t h o s e activities. Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.270(3)-(6). P l a i n t i f f alleges that he provided formal notice i n his October 25, 2007, letter to S h e r i f f Winters. (Am. Compl. ~ 21.) Defendants argue that this does not qualify as "the public b o d y at
Order 4
its principal administrative office, to any member o f the governing b o d y o f the public body, o r to an attorney designated b y the governing body as its general counsel" as set forth i n Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.270(5). (Def.'s Mem. i n Supp. o f Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs.' Memo") 4.) The Court agrees. Only the Board o f Commissioners is the governing b o d y i n Jackson County, and the s h e r i f f is n o t a m e m b e r o f the this Board. The Home Rule Charter o f Jackson County, Oregon ("Charter") defines the Board o f County Commissioners as "the governing b o d y o f the County is t h e B o a r d o f t h r e e C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s , w h o shall b e n o m i n a t e d a n d e l e c t e d f r o m t h e C o u n t y at large." § 9. T h e Charter also explains the "Form o f Government" to include (1) the Board o f Commissioners, (2) a Sheriff, Assessor, Treasurer, Clerk, and Surveyor, and (3) "whatever other C o u n t y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and a d v i s o r y o f f i c e s and a g e n c i e s a n d w h a t e v e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s are continued o r established b y o r under this Charter." §5. A clear reading o f the charter indicates that only the Board o f County Commissioners is t h e " g o v e r n i n g b o d y " i n J a c k s o n County. W h i l e t h e s h e r i f f i s a p a r t o f t h e " g o v e r n m e n t , " t h e Court cannot ignore that governing b o d y was explicitly used i n reference only to the B o a r d o f County Commissioners. Accordingly, b y providing notice to the sheriff, the P l a i n t i f f did n o t c o m p l y w i t h n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s u n d e r t h e OTCA. P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t n o t i f y i n g the s h e r i f f c a n s a t i s f y n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s u n d e r t h e O T C A . H e points to cases in which notices to sheriffs were valid. These cases, however, are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e b e c a u s e t h e y are c l a i m s a g a i n s t o t h e r c o u n t i e s , n o t c l a i m s a g a i n s t J a c k s o n County. See Uruo v. Clackamas County, 997 P.2d 269 (Or. Ct. App. 2000); Fraker v. Benton County S h e r i f f s Office, (Or. Ct. App. 2007). P l a i n t i f f s cases merely indicate that notice to s h e r i f f m a y s a t i s f y t h e O T C A r e q u i r e m e n t s , n o t t h a t i t must. Order 5
Plaintiff also asks the Court, in the alternative, that the motion to dismiss be converted to a motion for summary judgment because "the issue o f actual notice under [the OTCA] necessarily requires a factual record beyond j u s t what the pleadings may show.". (Pl.'s Resp. 8.) Plaintiff also cites Voth v. Smith, in which the Court o f Appeals o f Oregon recognized that the s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s t o r t c l a i m n o t i c e s h o u l d have b e e n r e s o l v e d o n s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t . 69 P.3d 1274, 1275 (Or. Ct. App. 2003.) Federal rules allow a 12(b)(6) motion to be treated as a motion for summary j u d g m e n t when matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded b y court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). The Court, however, declines to consider matters outside the pleadings and to convert the motion to a motion for summary judgment. l Plaintiff has not alleged actual notice in his complaint. Defendants' motion is granted, and Plaintiffs second claim for r e l i e f is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff, after conducting further discovery, is given leave to amend his complaint as to the actual notice requirement by January 7 , 2 0 1 0 .
D A T E D this
-2-
day o f D
M A R K D . CLARKE U n i t e d States M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e
1 I n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Ritchie, t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t u s e d c o n d i t i o n a l l a n g u a g e i n d e s c r i b i n g r u l e 1 2 ( b ) a n d 12 ( d ) , i n d i c a t i n g the c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n : " i f a d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n s i d e r s e v i d e n c e o u t s i d e the p l e a d i n g s , i t m u s t n o r m a l l y c o n v e r t t h e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n i n t o a R u l e 5 6 m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , a n d it m u s t g i v e t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d . " 3 4 2 F . 3 d 9 0 3 , 9 0 8 ( 9 t h Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .
Order 6
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
