1 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

SEAN L. HARTFIELD,

Plaintiff, 

v.

OREGON STATE BAR, and Unknown 

Individuals (J. Does Nos. 1-10),

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00068 -ST

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION

STEWART, Magistrate Judge:

INTRODUCTION

This is an action by plaintiff, Sean L. Hartfield, a lawyer appearing pro se, against the 

Oregon State Bar (“OSB”) and Does 1-10 under 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988 alleging a claim for a 

violation of his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and a 

claim for fraud. The claims arise out of disciplinary proceedings against him by the OSB, 

resulting in a public reprimand issued against him in 2010 for violating Oregon Rule of 

Professional Conduct 8.4(a)(4) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). He seeks 

the award of damages in amounts to be determined, litigation costs and expenses, and “such 

other relief as the Court deems just and proper.” 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 5 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 5
2 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to FRCP 12(h)(3), the court “must dismiss the action” if it “determines at any 

time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.” For the reasons set forth below, this action should 

be dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

FINDINGS

The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution bars citizens from suing in 

federal court either a state, an agency acting under its control, or a state officer in his official 

capacity. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 US 139, 144 

(1993); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 US 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 US 

651, 662-63, 673 (1974). There are two exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment protection: 

(1) Congress can abrogate the Eleventh Amendment without the consent of the states in certain 

situations; and (2) a state may waive its immunity by consenting to suit in federal court but must 

do so by “the most express language or by such overwhelming implication from the text as will 

leave no room for any other reasonable construction.” Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 

US 234, 239-40 (1985), quoting Edelman, 415 US at 673 (internal quotation marks and brackets 

omitted). 

The OSB is an “instrumentality of the Judicial Department of the government of the State 

of Oregon.” ORS 9.010(2). Because the State of Oregon has not waived its sovereign immunity 

and Congress has not abrogated it, claims against the OSB in federal court are barred by the 

Eleventh Amendment. See e.g., Hirsh v. Justices of Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F3d 708, 715 (9th

Cir 1995); Coultas v. Payne, No. 3:12-cv-11232-AC, 2012 WL 6726247, at *1 (D Or Dec. 27, 

2012), citing Erwin v. Oregon ex rel Kitzhaber, 231 F Supp2d 1003, 1007 (D Or 2001). 

In addition, “States or governmental entities that are considered ‘arms of the State’ for 

Eleventh Amendment purposes” are not “persons” under § 1983. Doe v. Lawrence Livermore 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 5 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 5
3 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Nat’l Lab., 131 F3d 836, 839 (9th Cir 1997), quoting Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 

US 58, 70 (1989). As noted above, the OSB is an “instrumentality of the Judicial Department of 

the government of the State of Oregon.” ORS 9.010(2). Therefore, the OSB is not a “person”

subject to suit under § 1983. Clark v. State of Wash., 366 F2d 678, 681 (9th Cir 1966) (bar 

association is an agency of the state and, therefore, not a person under meaning of § 1983); 

Paulson v. Oregon State Bar, No. 6:13-cv-175-AA, 2013 WL 2659605, at *2 (D Or June 4, 

2013).

Adding individuals as Doe defendants does not save this case from dismissal.1 Hartfield 

alleges that the Doe defendants were “agents, employees, officials, staff, and/or representatives 

of the bar.” First Amended Complaint, ¶ 6. A state official is immune from suits for damages 

under the Eleventh Amendment absent waiver or congressional abrogation. Krainski v. Nevada, 

616 F3d 963, 968 (9th Cir 2010). The only exception is “where the relief sought is prospective in 

nature and is based on an ongoing violation of the plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory

rights.” Id at 967-68 (emphasis omitted). Hartfield seeks money damages against the Doe 

defendants and does not seek prospective relief. Therefore, his claims against the Doe 

defendants in their official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The First Amended Complaint may also allege claims against the Doe defendants in their 

individual capacity. However, all of the allegations involve conduct allegedly carried out by 

them in prosecuting disciplinary action against Hartfield on behalf of the OSB. State bar 

prosecutors “are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity so long as they perform functions similar to 

 1

 As a general rule, the use of “John Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F2d 637, 642 (9th Cir 

1980) (citation omitted). However, situations arise where the identity of alleged defendants will not be known prior to the filing 

of a complaint. In such circumstances, “the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown 

defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities or that the complaint would be dismissed on other 

grounds.” Id (citations omitted); see also Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 US 340, 351 n13 (1978).

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 5 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 5
4 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

judges and prosecutors in a setting like that of a court.” Hirsh, 67 F3d at 715. Therefore, the 

Doe defendants are entitled to dismissal based on quasi-judicial immunity.

Even if any of the Doe defendants may be sued in federal court, the First Amended 

Complaint suffers from another defect: the § 1983 claim is time barred. Claims based on federal 

constitutional violations under § 1983 are subject to the analogous state statute of limitations 

period. Kimes v. Stone, 84 F3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir 1996), citing Wilson v. Garcia, 471 US 261 

(1985). Oregon’s two-year personal injury statute of limitations in ORS 12.110 applies here. 

Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir 2002). A § 1983 claim accrues when 

“plaintiffs know or have reason to know of the injury that is the basis of their action.” RK 

Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 307 F3d 1045, 1058 (9th Cir 2002. The Oregon Supreme Court 

reprimanded Hartfield effective September 23, 2010. First Amended Complaint, ¶ 53 & Ex. 1. 

All of the disciplinary action implicated in the First Amended Complaint occurred before that 

date. Therefore, the violations alleged by Hartfield occurred well outside of the applicable twoyear statute of limitations period, requiring dismissal based on statute of limitations grounds.

Generally, a pro se plaintiff is given the opportunity to amend a complaint and cure any 

deficiencies identified by the court. However, the deficiencies cannot be cured in this case.

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, this action should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

SCHEDULING ORDER

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

any, are due Monday, February 01, 2016. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and 

Recommendation will go under advisement on that date.

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 5 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 5
5 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a 

copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings 

and Recommendation will go under advisement.

NOTICE

This Findings and 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)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of a judgment.

DATED January 15, 2016. 

s/ Janice M. Stewart

Janice M. Stewart

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 5 Filed 01/15/16 Page 5 of 5