Numrich v. State of Oregon, No. 3:2015cv00183 - Document 26 (D. Or. 2015)

Court Description: Opinion and Order. The Court concludes Plaintiffs appeal of the Courts August 31, 2015, Order and Judgment is frivolous,and, therefore, Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status should not continue for Plaintiffs appeal. Signed on 10/07/2015 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (bb)

Download PDF
Numrich v. State of Oregon Doc. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EDGAR T. NUMRICH, Plaintiff, 3:15-CV-00183-JE OPINION AND ORDER v. STATE OF OREGON, Defendant. EDGAR T. NUMRICH P.O. Box 1381 Lake Oswego, OR 97035-0539 (503) 635-2599 Plaintiff, Pro Se ELLEN ROSENBLUM Attorney General JUSTIN E. KIDD Assistant Attorney General 1162 Court Street N.E. Salem, OR 97301 (503) 947-4700 Attorneys for Defendant 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com BROWN, Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the Ninth Circuit’s Referral Notice, Case No. 15-35759, referring Plaintiff Edgar T. Numrich’s appeal to this Court for the sole purpose of determining whether Plaintiff’s “in forma pauperis status should continue for [his] appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” The Court concludes Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should not continue for appeal. DISCUSSION On June 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation in which he recommended the Court grant Defendant State of Oregon’s Motion to Dismiss, deny as moot Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement, and dismiss this matter with prejudice on the ground that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. On August 31, 2015, the Court issued an Order adopting the Findings and Recommendation, granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, denying as moot Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement, and dismissing this matter with prejudice. On August 31, 2015, the Court also issued a Judgment dismissing this matter with prejudice. 2 - OPINION AND ORDER On September 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. On September 30, 2015, the Ninth Circuit, as noted, referred Plaintiff’s appeal to this Court for the sole purpose of determining whether Plaintiff’s “in forma pauperis status should continue for [his] appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” In the June 17, 2015, Finding and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Absent waiver or consent by the State the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court against the State or its agencies. (1984). Pennhurst v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100–101 Plaintiff did not establish the State of Oregon either waived or consented to be sued in this matter. In addition, the Supreme Court has held a State is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 491 U.S. 58, 67 (1989). Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court concludes Plaintiff’s appeal of the Court’s August 31, 2015, Order and Judgment is frivolous, and, therefore, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should not 3 - OPINION AND ORDER continue for Plaintiff’s appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 7th day of October, 2015. /s/ Anna J. Brown ANNA J. BROWN United States District Judge 4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.