Opinion
3:21-cv-00436-MO
04-05-2021
RICHARD J CHANDLER, also known as Richard Anderson, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL REESE, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Richard J. Chandler, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Defendant Michael Reese. Mr. Chandler has applied to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). I GRANT his Application for Leave to Proceed IFP [ECF 1]. However, for the following reasons, I DISMISS his Complaint [ECF 2] with leave to amend. I also DENY his Motion to Compel [ECF 3] and Motion for an Order of Stay [ECF 4].
BACKGROUND
Mr. Chandler brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Mr. Reese, alleging that Mr. Reese provided ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Compl. [ECF 2] at 2. He also alleges Mr. Reese was negligent and violated the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. He seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive, and non-economic damages. Id. He provides no further details in his complaint.
Mr. Chandler also asks me to compel Mr. Reese to provide various documents. See Motion to Compel [ECF 3]. And he asks for a 30-day extension or stay, ostensibly to conduct discovery. See Motion for an Order of Stay [ECF 4], STANDARD OF REVIEW
I must dismiss a complaint filed IFP before service of process if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction ...; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.. .." 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 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A "complaint 'must provide sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.'" Caltex Plastics, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 824 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2016) (alteration accepted) (quoting Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011)). The factual allegations must "plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief." Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216. "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." Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted' unlawfully." Id.
Courts must construe pro se pleadings liberally and give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt. Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). "Although apro se litigant. . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his 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). "Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect, ... a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action." Lucas v. Dep `t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).
DISCUSSION
Mr. Chandler's complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It lacks any allegation of underlying facts that would give Mr. Reese fair notice or that would enable Mr. Reese to defend himself effectively. The complaint therefore fails to satisfy Rule 8, and I must dismiss it.
As a pro se litigant, Mr. Chandler is entitled to notice of his complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend unless any amendment would be futile. For the following reasons, I dismiss his § 1983 claim with prejudice but grant leave to amend his negligence claim. I also deny his discovery requests as premature.
I. Section 1983
Mr. Chandler is attempting to bring a § 1983 claim against a public defender for ineffective assistance of counsel. However, public defenders "are not state actors subject to liability under § 1983." Cotton v. County of San Bernardino, 700 Fed.Appx. 776, 777 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003)). No. amendment will solve this problem. Accordingly, I DISMISS Mr. Chandler's § 1983 claim with prejudice.
II. Negligence
Mr. Chandler is also attempting to bring a negligence claim, which is ostensibly premised on a violation of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. As pleaded, it is unclear whether the court has jurisdiction over this claim. The court has jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, Mr. Chandler's negligence claim does not appear to arise under federal law. The court also has jurisdiction over "all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 ... and is between . . . citizens of different states." 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1). For example, the court would have jurisdiction over Mr. Chandler's negligence claim if he and Mr. Reese are citizens of different states and Mr. Chandler seeks more than $75,000. Neither of those requirements is clear from the face of the complaint. In fact, it seems likely that both Mr. Chandler and Mr. Reese are citizens of Oregon. If that is the case, then this court lacks jurisdiction, and I must dismiss the claim.
However, unlike Mr. Chandler's § 1983 claim, it is not absolutely clear that no amendment can cure his complaint's defects as to his negligence claim. Thus, Mr. Chandler should be given an opportunity to amend. If Mr. Chandler chooses to file an amended complaint, he must comply with the pleading standards described above. His amended complaint must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the he is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). He should provide a short and plain statement that describes what Mr. Reese did, when he did it, and why that action (or failure to act) violated Mr. Chandler's rights or broke the law. And he should explain why this court has jurisdiction over his negligence claim, which appears to arise under state law.
III. Discovery Motions
In addition, Mr. Chandler has filed two discovery-related motions. See Motion to Compel [ECF 3]; Motion for an Order of Stay [ECF 4]. These motions are not yet ripe. He must first file an amended complaint that satisfies the above criteria and then serve summons in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Once he does, discovery will commence, and I will consider any discovery-related motions at that time. I therefore DENY these motions with leave to renew.
CONCLUSION
I GRANT the Application for Leave to Proceed IFP [ECF 1]. I DENY Mr. Chandler's Motion to Compel [ECF 3] and Motion for an Order of Stay [ECF 4]. And I DISMISS the Complaint [ECF 2]. I DISMISS Mr. Chandler's § 1983 claim with prejudice. I DISMISS his negligence claim without prejudice. Mr. Chandler is granted leave to file an amended complaint as to his negligence claim that satisfies the requirements described above. He shall file an amended complaint, if any, by April 30, 2021. If Mr. Chandler fails to file an amended complaint, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.