IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PETER BARCLAY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE STATE OF OREGON et al., 

Defendants. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

Civ. No. 6:15-cv-01920-MC 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff, prose, brings this motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, in an action 

against the State of Oregon and 33 named individuals alleging that the defendants 

unconstitutionally considered plaintiffs federal veteran disability benefits as "income" in 

awarding spousal support, see Com pl. 8, 11, 40, ECF No. 1. 

This Court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under FRCP 12(b )( 6) for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F .2d 986, 991 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Likewise, if a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, this Court is 

required to dismiss "the case at any time if the court determines that" the action or appeal is 

"frivolous or malicious" or "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). Upon review, plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to 

amend, plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No.2, is GRANTED, and 

plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction and declaratory relief, ECF No. 3, is DENIED 

without prejudice. 

1 -OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01920-MC Document 6 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 3
STANDARD OF REVIEW 

"In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears prose, [this Court] must construe the 

pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt." Karim-Panahi v. L.A. 

Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). This Court must give a prose 

litigant "leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of 

the complaint could not be cured by amendment." !d. (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). "Moreover, before dismissing a prose civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, 

- [this Court] must give the plaintiff a statement ofthe complaint's deficiencies." !d. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff broadly seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under the Due Process Clause, the 

Equal Protection Clause, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, and 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985. See Compl. 1-90, ECF 

No. 1. To survive an assessment under FRCP 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), plaintiff 

must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Such facts are presumed true and must constitute 

"more than a sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). 

Plaintiffs allegations, at least as currently articulated, are insufficient to state a claim. To 

properly state a claim, plaintiffs complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FRCP 8(a)(2). Plaintiff need, in an 

amended complaint, specify the claim or claims that he is asserting against each defendant. For 

example, if plaintiff intends to challenge a spousal support obligation, he need identify the 

obligation and explain in a short and plain statement why that obligation is unconstitutional. 

2- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01920-MC Document 6 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 3
This Court, having reviewed plaintiffs extensive filings, is unable to determine the specific basis 

for plaintiffs constitutional challenge to ORS § 25.010. 1 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend, 

plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No.2, is GRANTED, and plaintiffs 

motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3, is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is 

allowed 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint curing the 

deficiencies identified above. The Clerk of the Court shall not issue process until further order 

of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this~ day of October, 2015. 

Michael J. McShane 

United States District Judge 

1 This Court notes that Oregon courts frequently consider "veterans' disability benefits in awarding spousal support, 

even where the recipient has waived military retirement pay to receive those benefits." In reMarriage of Morales, 

230 Or. App. 132, 138 (2009) (citations omitted); see also In reMarriage of Hayes, 228 Or. App. 555, 564 (2009) 

(explaining that "the majority of courts have upheld the division of total retired pay (including any waived portion), 

on a number of different grounds") 

3 -OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01920-MC Document 6 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 3