Brooks v. Fowler et al
| Matthew D. Brooks |
| Heather Deschamps Fowler, Matthew Jason Fowler and Eugene Police Department |
| 6:2023cv01379 |
| September 21, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Michael J McShane |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 31, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
Scheduling Order: Amended Complaint is due 11/30/2023. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 10/31/2023.) (ck)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER: Pro se plaintiff Matthew Brooks seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), must screen applications to proceed IFP and dismiss any case that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. To survive an assessment under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a 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). The Complaint is exceedingly sparse on any specific factual allegations, alleging only that "Defendant used her personal network within EPD to observe/investigate Plaintiff no warrant." Claims against law enforcement and other government actors (or " 1983 claims") require Plaintiff to allege, amongst other things, that Defendants actually acted "under color of state law." Gritchen v. Collier, 254 F.3d 807, 812 (9th Cir. 2001). The Complaint currently fails to allege enough facts to state a plausible claim. By example, the Complaint does not allege any wrongdoing by Defendant Matthew Fowler, explain when Defendants' alleged conduct occurred, or the Complaint does not explain if and/or how the individual defendants are "state actors" necessary for a 1983 claim. See Grae-El v. City of Seattle, 618 F. Supp. 3d 1080, 1086-87 (W.D. Wash. July 26, 2022) (noting state action requirement is "essential because 1983 excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrong.") (citation omitted) (cleaned up). Additionally, while it appears Plaintiff attempts to bring an unlawful seizure claim, the Court is unable to make out a constitutional violation for observing or investigating Plaintiff. Absent some search or seizure, the constitution generally does not preclude a police department from observing or investigating an individual. Often times, it is through that lawful investigation that the police establish probable cause to obtain a warrant authorizing the search or seizure of a person or property. On these sparse allegations, the Court is unable to infer that any search or seizure occurred. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Application to Proceed IFP #2 but gives leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff also moves for appointment of pro bono counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil action. Given that the Court is unable to make out any valid claim, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel #3 with leave to amend at a later date. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 10/31/2023.) (ck)
|
| Filing 4 Notice of Case Assignment: This case is assigned to Judge Michael J. McShane. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 9/21/2023.) (jw) |
| Filing 3 Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel. Filed by Matthew D. Brooks. (jw) |
| Filing 2 Application for Leave to Proceed IFP. Filed by Matthew D. Brooks. (jw) |
| Filing 1 Complaint. Jury Trial Requested: No. Filed by Matthew D. Brooks against Heather Deschamps Fowler, Matthew Jason Fowler, Eugene Police Department. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet). (jw) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
