Green v. Whetzel et al, No. 6:2016cv00575 - Document 4 (D. Or. 2016)
Court Description: Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's complaint 1 is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff is allowed 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above, otherwise this action will be dismis sed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall not issue process until further order of this Court. Should plaintiff fail to amend or decide to voluntarily withdraw this action, his filing fee shall be refunded. Signed on 4/11/2016 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Copy mailed to plaintiff) (cp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Green v. Whetzel et al Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON BLISS HEBERLEIN GREEN, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 6:16-cv-00575-MC OPINION AND ORDER DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants. MCSHANE, Judge: Plaintiff, a senior citizen of California proceeding pro se, brings this action after having paid the filing fee. See Compl. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs claims surround an encounter with a Douglas County Sheriffs deputy that occurred while Plaintiff was traveling in Oregon. Plaintiff appears to take issue with (1) the fact that the deputy did not read him his Miranda rights; (2) the fact that the deputy "attempt[ed] to force Plaintiff to disclose medical conditions by threatening actions"; and (3) the fact that the deputy "failed to recognize that Plaintiffs car had a severely under-inflated tire." Compl., ECF No. 1at3-4. This Court may dismiss claims sua sponte under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Upon review, Plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com STANDARD OF REVIEW "In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears prose, [this Court] must construe the pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt." Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A prose litigant must be provided "leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). "Moreover, before dismissing a prose civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, [this Court] must give the plaintiff a statement of the complaint's deficiencies." Id. To survive an assessment under FRCP 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2)(B), plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Such facts are presumed true and must constitute "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). DISCUSSION Plaintiffs claims contain deficiencies that nearly meet the high threshold of absolute clarity that they cannot be cured by amendment. First, Miranda warnings are required only in situations of custodial interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). Otherwise, "Miranda leaves the responsibility for keeping a citizen informed of his constitutional rights with the preeminent guardian of those rights: the citizen himself" United States v. Kilgroe, 959 F.2d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff alleges that his interaction with the deputy took place during a routine traffic stop in a convenience store parking lot. At one point during the interaction, Plaintiff "walked away" from the deputy "who then left Plaintiff alone ... and went on his way." 2 - OPINION AND ORDER Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 3. On its face, this traffic stop does not arise to custodial interrogation and therefore did not require Miranda warnings. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 3152, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1984). Next, Plaintiff alleges that the deputy threatened to suspend Plaintiffs license in order to force Plaintiff to disclose his medical conditions. Plaintiff makes no viable claim by asserting this allegation, and this conversation does not arise to a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Plaintiffs final claim similarly fails. Plaintiff asserts that the deputy failed to identify and warn of an under-inflated tire which then caused Plaintiff to "not drive straight" and rendered him unable to "hold a lane" on the highway. Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff does not identify any obligation by law enforcement officers to inspect citizen's vehicles and warn them of potential hazards. Plaintiff again fails to state a claim. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff is allowed 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above, otherwise this action will be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall not issue process until further order of this Court. Should Plaintiff failed to amend or decide to voluntarily withdraw this action, his filing fee shall be refunded .. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this if day of April, 2016. \.-- LMichael J. Mc Shane United States District Judge 3 - 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.
