UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

ANDREW G. CLARK, 6: 14-CV-1103-TC 

Plaintiff, 

v. FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION 

ERIK HASSLEMAN, District Attorney's 

Office for Lane County Oregon, State of 

Oregon; WELLS FARGO, N.A.; OGLETREE, 

DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & 

STEWART,P.C.; a South Carolina 

Corporation;. 

Defendants. 

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge: 

Represented plaintiff brings several claims in this § 1983 action against three defendants. He 

alleges violations of his First, Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under color of law 

by Assistant District Attorney Erik Hassleman, who brings the motion that is presently before the 

court. Hasselman moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim and prosecutorial immunity. 

For the reasons discussed below, the motion should be allowed and defendant Hassleman should 

be dismissed from this action. 

Page 1 - FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION 

Case 6:14-cv-01103-JR Document 123 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 3
Standards 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. " Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b )(6). In considering a motion to dismiss made 

pursuant to 12(b )( 6), the court views well pleaded factual allegations as true, but also requires the 

complaint to contain enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic v. 

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 195 5 (2007) (concluding that prior review standard -affirming dismissal only 

when it appears beyond doubt that plaintiffs can prove "no set of facts" in support of their claim that 

would entitle them to relief - "has earned its retirement.") 

The requirements for pleading a federal claim in federal court were recently set forth in Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009): 

Id. at 1949. 

As the Court held in Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, the pleading standard 

Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but 

it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.... To survive a motion to dismiss, a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.' 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. 

DISCUSSION 

As previously noted, Deputy District Attorney Hasselman moves to dismiss for failure to state 

a claim and prosecutorial immunity. Plaintiff failed to directly address the assertions related to the 

failures to state a claim in paragraphs 51 ( c ), 51 (f) and 51 (h) of the Amended Complaint and the 

motion should be allowed as to those paragraphs. 

Page 2 - FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION 

Case 6:14-cv-01103-JR Document 123 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 3
As for prosecutorial immunity, plaintiff does not challenge the concept that charging and postcharging conduct is generally entitled to prosecutorial immunity and defendant's application of such 

immunity. Plaintiff notes in a general fashion that pre-charging conduct can be outside the scope 

of prosecutorial immunity but does not specifically apply that to this action with any citation to the 

Amended Complaint, and as demonstrated by defendant Hasselman, the claims against defendant 

do not concern the pre-charging phase; in fact, the claims make no mention of defendant giving any 

pre-charging advice to anyone. Instead, the claims exclusively concern the charging and postcharging phases. Paragraphs 51 (a)-(h) of First Amended Complaint (#100). 

Represented plaintiff requests in a general fashion in his opposition that if defendant's motion 

is allowed, he be allowed to amend the Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a) and that 

such Rule requires that leave to amend be "freely given." However, the Rule states that leave to 

amend should be freely given "when justice so requires" and that does not appear to be the case in 

the circumstances of this action. Plaintiff is free to file a motion for leave to amend if it is in 

compliance with the required federal and local rules. 

CONCLUSION 

Defendant Hassleman' s motion ( # 101) to dismiss should be allowed and defendant Hasselman 

should be dismissed from this action .. 

DATED this /<~,, day of~:7ebruary, 2016. 

( /// 

THO ~:G. COFFIN 

United Stat~s Magistrate Judge 

Page 3 - FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION 

Case 6:14-cv-01103-JR Document 123 Filed 02/08/16 Page 3 of 3