UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JONATHON B. NEUBER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOSHUA PRITT, JOEL PICKERD, CODY 

SMITH, JUSTIN CARLEY, 

Defendants. 

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge: 

6: 15-cv-833-TC 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION 

and 

ORDER 

Pro se plaintiff, Jonathan Neuber, brings this action asserting violation of his First and 

Fourteenth Amendment right to domestic/familial association. Before the court are plaintiffs 

motions for a protective order and for partial summary judgment, and defendants' motion to strike. 

A. Motion for Order of Protected Discovery (#28) 

The gravamen of plaintiffs complaint is that he was in a relationship with Lori Lemhouse, 

but that he and Lemhouse's probation officers violated his constitutional rights by ordering the two 

of them to have no contact with each other because of their respective criminal convictions. Plaintiff 

Page 1 - FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION and ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00833-JR Document 41 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 4
seeks discovery from defendants "that would bear on the issue of selective prosecution" with respect 

to his relationship with Lemhouse in comparison to other "domestic couples" under supervision. 

Plaintiff specifically asks the court to "authorize protected discovery (attorney/judges eyes only) 

which would be sealed to the public, regarding non judicially sanctioned P. 0. non contact directives 

aimed at other domestic couples who have been under supervision of Benton County Parole and 

Probation over these past number of years." 

It is unclear how plaintiff's assertion of selective prosecution ties in with his claim of 

deprivation of a familial relation. 1 Regardless of whether Benton County probation has singled him 

out for alleged deprivation of this right, his claim, assuming he has a constitutional protected interest 

in his relationship with Lemhouse, would still stand. 2 It does not appear that plaintiff is alleging a 

claim for violation of his right to equal protection. It is not clear how the requested discovery is 

relevant to the claims in the operative complaint. 

Defendants note that plaintiff failed to adequately confer regarding discovery issues before 

filing the instant motion. Plaintiffs reply in support of the motion3 indicates he is also seeking 

Lemhouse's probation records as well as documents targeted to other issues. not raised in the 

operative complaint. Accordingly, the dispute is not ripe for court intervention. The motion is 

1

Plaintiff does also reference illegal search and seizure and false imprisonment in his 

request for relief, but does not specifically reference the Fourth Amendment in the complaint. 

Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment does reference the Fourth Amendment. 

2

Plaintiff' s reply appears to suggest he is also seeking to raise claims on behalf of others 

regarding "social class cleansing." Plaintiff may have standing to raise the issue of selective 

prosecution directed at him as part of a protected class, if possible, but he does not have standing 

to raise the issue on behalf of others. Nonetheless, plaintiff has not moved to amend his 

complaint to raise such a claim. 

3

Defendants move to strike plaintiff's reply and that motion is denied. 

Page 2 - FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION and ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00833-JR Document 41 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 4
denied without prejudice to be refiled, if necessary, after the parties confer regarding discovery. 

Plaintiff may also confer with defendants regarding amending the complaint, if necessary. 

B. Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (#30) 

Despite ongoing discovery that even plaintiff claims is necessary, plaintiff has moved for 

partial summary judgment against defendants Pickerd, Pritt, and Smith for apparently all claims 

(raised and unraised in the complaint) including violation of his rights to privacy and familial 

association, and illegal search and seizure. While plaintiff asserts that it is clearly established that 

he was directed to leave the home he shared with Lemhouse while under supervision, that Lemhouse 

was ordered to have no contact with plaintiff, that defendants conducted a search to discover plaintiff 

and arrest him and imprison him, it is not clear that such facts establish any constitutional violation 

at this stage of the proceedings. Indeed, defendants have not had an opportunity to depose plaintiff. 

Moreover, it appears that plaintiffs claims have not even been clearly alleged at this point such that 

defendants have had an adequate opportunity to respond. 

Before a court may enter summary judgment, an opposing party must be given a meaningful 

opportunity to respond which includes time for discovery necessary to develop facts justifying 

opposition to the motion. See Portland Retail Druggists Association v. Kaiser Foundation Health 

Plan, 662 F .2d 641, 645 (9th Cir.1981) (Implicit in the "opportunity to respond" is the requirement 

that sufficient time be afforded for discovery necessary to develop "facts essential to justify (a 

party's) opposition" to the motion). At this stage, defendants have not even been meaningfully 

informed of the claims against them, much less had an opportunity to discovery facts to justify their 

opposition to those claims. The motion for partial summary judgment ·should. be denied without 

Page 3 - FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION and ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00833-JR Document 41 Filed 10/13/15 Page 3 of 4
prejudice to be refiled, if necessary, after the close of discovery and any necessary amendments to 

the pleadings. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above plaintiffs motion for an order for protected discovery ( #28) and 

defendants' motion to strike (#37) are denied. 

Also for the reasons stated above, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment (#30) 

should be denied. This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(l), Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The 

parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections 

to any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge will be considered as a waiver of a party's right 

to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to this 

recommendation. 

DATED this f.J day of October 2015. 

THOMAS M. COFFIN 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Page 4 - FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION and ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00833-JR Document 41 Filed 10/13/15 Page 4 of 4