Rapley et al v. Oregon Department of Human Services, Stabilization and Crisis Unit et al
| Britny De Leon, Angela Fenn, Annamaria Magliulo, Derrick Neeley, Theresa Rapley, Sue Riddell and Judy Tinsman |
| Tessa Baston, Bradley Heath, Jana McLellan, Oregon Department of Human Services, Stabilization and Crisis Unit and Clyde Saiki |
| 3:2017cv00294 |
| February 21, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| Youlee Yim You |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
11
ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge You's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. According ly, the Court ADOPTS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 8 . Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF 3 ) is GRANTED. Claims three and four are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend claims one and two under the danger creation exception recognized by DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty., Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989); L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 1996); and L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1992). Signed on 7/7/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
