f 

I 

I 

I 

I 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Jesi Ray Lant, 

Plaintiff, 1:15-cv-02073-AA 

v. ORDER 

Frank Skrah, et al., 

Defendants. 

Mcshane, District Judge. 

Plaintiff filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, 

alleging defendants violated his rights during his detention 

in the Klamath County Jail on April 30, 2014 through May 1, 

2014. Plaintiff alleges Constitutional claims for "unsanitary 

cell conditions," excessive force, and denial of adequate 

medical care. Plaintiff also alleges two claims under the 

Oregon Constitution. 

All of plaintiffs claims fail as a matter of law because 

they are alleged against "defendants" collectively. Plaintiff 

has not alleged any specific facts against specific individual 

1 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-02073-AA Document 33 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 4
defendants. 

In order to state a claim against a named defendant, 

plaintiff must allege specific facts about that defendant and 

identify how that defendant's conduct violated his rights. 

General allegations are insufficient. The absence of any 

factual allegations against a named defendant will entitle 

that defendant to have the complaint dismissed as to him, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Polk v. Montgomery County, 

548 F. Supp. 613, 614 (D.Md. 1982). See also, Morabito v. 

Blum, 528 F.Supp. 252, 262 (S.D. N.Y. 1981), see also Bell 

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

Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal for failure 

to state a claim because plaintiff fails to allege specific 

fact as to specific individuals. 

Arguably this pleading deficiency could be cured by 

amendment. However, defendants have filed a Motion for 

Summary Judgment (#24). On November 14, 2014, plaintiff was 

sent a summary judgment advice notice (#31) advising him of 

the federal rules concerning summary judgments and what he 

must do to avoid having his case dismissed. Plaintiff was 

advised that his response was due by December 19, 2016 and 

that defendants' motion for summary judgment would be taken 

under advisement by the court on December 20, 2016. Plaintiff 

has not filed a response. 

2 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-02073-AA Document 33 Filed 12/29/16 Page 2 of 4
Defendants motion for summary judgment is 19 pages long 

and responds in detail to each of plaintiff's claims with 

cogent argument supported by the declarations of 

Jeanette Davidson (#25), Joni Stewart (#26), Michael Thompson 

(#27), Shawn Garlock (#28), Valerie Neese (#29), and Gerald 

Warren (#30). 

The facts established in the declarations have not been 

controverted by plaintiff. Defendants' arguments and 

supporting facts establish that there is "no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact, and that defendants are "entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 

A party is entitled to summary judgment where the 

documentary evidence produced by the parties permits only one 

conclusion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 

251-52(1986). "If the moving party meets its initial burden 

of showing the absence of a material and triable issue of 

fact, the burden then moves to the opposing party, who must 

present significant and probative evidence tending to support 

its claim or defense. Intel Corp. V. Hartford, 952 F.2d 1551, 

1558 (9th Cir. 1991). In other words, the non-moving party 

(plaintiff in this case) must produce sufficient evidence 

demonstrating to the court that there are genuine issues of 

material fact to be decided at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 

To do this, plaintiff must point to specific evidence in the 

3 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-02073-AA Document 33 Filed 12/29/16 Page 3 of 4
record. Celotex v. Catrett, 447 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). 

In this case, defendants have satisfied their initial 

burden. Although being advised of the summary judgment rules 

and afforded an opportunity to do so, plaintiff has not 

presented any evidence or arguments in response. 

Therefore, defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#24) 

is allowed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a 

judgment dismissing this action with prejudice. 

Any appeal from an order adopting this Order or Judgment 

dismissing this case would be frivolous and not taken in good 

faith. Therefore, plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is 

revoked. 

7 '\ DATED this - day of December, 2016. 

\ - l~---

Michael Mcshane 

United States District Judge 

4 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-02073-AA Document 33 Filed 12/29/16 Page 4 of 4