IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

MICHAEL LEE RAWSON, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

KCAC JIM NIELSEN and 

DR. SHEREE EVERETT, DMV, 

Defendants. 

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge. 

Civ. No. 1: 15-cv-01553-CL 

REPORT 

& RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff Michael Lee Rawson brings this action pro se. He alleges that Jim Nielsen, 

Chief of the Klamath County Animal Control, and Dr. Sheree Everett, a veterinarian, violated his 

federal right to privacy when they discussed his impounded dog's temperament and abilities 

without his permission. Compl. at 3. Nielsen moves (#12) to dismiss this action pursuant to FED. 

R. Clv. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Rather than 

filing opposition to Nielsen's motion, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (#20). Because the 

time allowed for amending pleadings as a matter of course has expired, the Court construes (#21) 

Plaintiffs amended complaint as a motion for leave to amend. For the reasons set forth below, 

Page I - REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:15-cv-01553-CL Document 25 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 5
both Nielsen's motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs request for leave to amend should be 

GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND 

The Court assumes the following allegations are true for the limited purpose of ruling on 

Nielsen's motion to dismiss: 

Plaintiffs wife's service dog, Buster, has been impounded by Klamath County Animal 

Control since January 6, 2015. Compl. at 3. On July 8, 2015, Plaintiff hired Dr. Everett to 

perform a wellness exam of Buster. Compl. at 3. While examining Buster, Dr. Everett answered 

Nielsen's questions about Buster's temperament and abilities. Compl. at 3. She said that Buster 

was not a service or emotional support dog. Compl. at 6. She described him as "unstable." 

Compl. at 5. Dr. Everett did not acquire Plaintiffs permission before making these statements. 

Compl. at 3. 

STANDARD 

"When ruling on a motion to dismiss, we accept all factual allegations in the complaint as 

true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Knievel v. 

ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Cervantes v. US., 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th 

Cir. 2003)). In order to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a 

claim, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 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. Iqbal, 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 

Page 2 - REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:15-cv-01553-CL Document 25 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 5
acted unlawfully. Id Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a 

defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement 

to relief.'" Id (citation omitted). 

Pleadings presented by individuals appearing pro se are held to a less stringent standard 

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Prose 

filings are construed liberally. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Before the 

court dismisses a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim, the Court must provide the 

plaintiff with a statement of the complaint's deficiencies and give the plaintiff leave to amend the 

complaint unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. 

Rouse v. U.S. Dep 't of State, 548 F.3d 871, 881-82 (9th Cir. 2008). 

DISCUSSION 

The Court liberally construes Plaintiffs Complaint to raise a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 for the deprivation of his right to privacy. Section 1983 is a vehicle for remedying 

violations of federal rights by government officials acting under the color of state law. Maine v. 

Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1980). In order to sustain a section 1983 claim, Plaintiff must show 

that (1) the complained of conduct was committed by a person acting under the color of state 

law, and (2) that conduct deprived Plaintiff of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the 

United States. Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his right to privacy by discussing Buster without 

Plaintiffs approval. There is no dispute that Nielsen was acting in his capacity as a county 

employee when he participated in the alleged conduct. Therefore, Plaintiffs claim against 

Page 3 - REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:15-cv-01553-CL Document 25 Filed 03/21/16 Page 3 of 5
Nielsen satisfies section 1983 's first requirement. 1 However, Plaintiffs pleading falters on the 

second requirement. His allegations do not invoke a plausible federal privacy right. The Ninth 

Circuit recognizes two types of constitutionally-protected privacy interests. The first is the 

interest in independence in making certain important decisions involving matters like marriage, 

procreation, and family relationships. In re Crawford, 194 F.3d 954, 958 (9th Cir.1999), cert. 

denied, 528 U.S. 1189 (2000). Plaintiffs claim falls far afield of this category. There is no 

suggestion that Defendants' conversation impaired Plaintiffs independent decision-making 

abilities in any of these limited areas. The second is the interest in avoiding disclosure of 

personal matters, known as "informational privacy." Id. The right to informational privacy 

encompasses, for example, the disclosure of medical information. Tucson Woman's Clinic v. 

Eden, 379 F.3d 531, 551 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief 

under this category. A veterinarian's opinion about an impounded dog does not fall within the 

ambit of intimate information that is entitled to privacy protection. Moreover, to the extent that 

Plaintiff alleges that the discussion infringed on his wife's privacy, Plaintiff does not have 

standing to bring suit on her behalf. See Wasson v. Sonoma County Junior College, 203 F.3d 

659, 663 (9th Cir. 2000) (ordinarily, a party is not permitted to assert constitutional rights other 

than his own). For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief may be 

granted. 

Dismissal is also appropriate under the doctrine of qualified immunity which protects 

government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 

1 The parties do not discuss whether Dr. Everett was acting under color of state law, and the 

Court will similarly refrain from speculating on that issue 

Page 4 - REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:15-cv-01553-CL Document 25 Filed 03/21/16 Page 4 of 5
known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). As discussed above, Nielsen's alleged 

conduct did not violate a clearly established privacy right. 

RECOMMENDATION 

For the reasons stated above, Nielsen's motion to dismiss (#12) should be GRANTED. 

Because it is not clear that the deficiencies of Plaintiffs complaint cannot be cured, Plaintiffs 

motion for leave to amend (#20) should also be GRANTED. 

This Report and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, 

are due no later than fourteen (14) days after the date this recommendation is filed. FED. R. C1v. 

P. 72. If objections are filed, any response is due within fourteen (14) days after being served 

with a copy of the objections. Id. Parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Page 5 - REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:15-cv-01553-CL Document 25 Filed 03/21/16 Page 5 of 5