UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DAIN SANSOME, MEI SANSOME, 

SHINO SANSO ME, and LYLA SANSO ME, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GLENN FAIRALL, CITY OF ALBANY, 

MATTHEW STARK, and STATE OF 

OREGON, 

Defendants. 

AIKEN, Judge: 

Case No. 6:15-cv-02267-AA 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendants violated their constitutional rights when 

plaintiff Dain Sansome was investigated and tried on charges of abuse. Defendants Matthew 

Stark and the State of Oregon move to dismiss plaintiffs' claims on grounds of Eleventh 

Amendment innnunity. Defendants Fairall and City of Albany move to dismiss plaintiffs' claims 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed no 

response to defendants' motions. 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-02267-AA Document 25 Filed 05/22/16 Page 1 of 4
DISCUSSION 

Defendants Stark and the State of Oregon argue that the Eleventh Amendment bars 

plaintiffs' claims against them from being brought in federal court. They are correct. 

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a plaintiff from 

suing the State of Oregon or its instrumentalities in federal court, unless the State has given 

unequivocal consent to be sued or Congress has abrogated that immunity. Raygor v. Regents of 

Univ. of ~Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 540-542 (2002); Will v. 1\1ich. Dep 't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 

66 (1989); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 97-100 (1984). Similarly, 

the Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages against state officials sued in their official 

capacities. See Holley v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 599 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (for immunity 

purposes, suits against state officials in their official capacities are treated as suits against the 

state); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) ("The Eleventh Amendment 

bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state, an 'arm of the state,' its 

instrumentalities, or its agencies.") (per curiam). Based on the allegations in the Complaint, 

plaintiffs sue Stark in his official capacity. See Comp!. at 2. Therefore, plaintiffs claims against 

him and the State of Oregon must be dismissed. 

Defendants Fairall and City of Albany move to dismiss plaintiffs' claims on grounds that 

they fail to state a claim. In the First Cause of Action, plaintiff Dain Sansome alleges a claim 

under § 1983 for violations of his "civil rights," though Sansome does not specify what rights 

were violated, how, or by whom. Comp!. at 7. 1 In the body of the Complaint, Sansome fmiher 

1 Elsewhere in the Complaint, plaintiffs asse1i violations of their "civil rights guaranteed 

by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fomieenth Amendments." Comp!. at 7. Given that plaintiffs generally 

allege violations of their "due process" rights, id. at 5-6, they presumably intend to assert their 

due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Fifth Amendment. See 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-02267-AA Document 25 Filed 05/22/16 Page 2 of 4
alleges that Fairall and the City violated his "due process rights" when Fairall ordered the 

alteration of a transcript documenting interviews between Sansome's minor child, Fairall, and 

Stark. Id. at 2-3, 5. However, he does not allege that the transcript alterations contained 

intentionally false accusations or caused the continuing investigation and prosecution of 

Sansome. See Chism v. Washington State, 661 F.3d 380, 386-87 (9th Cir. 2011); Devereaux v. 

Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, given that Fairall's actions occuned in 

2011, defendants argue that this claim is barred by the relevant two-year statute of limitations. 

See Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2002) (Oregon's two-year statute of 

limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under § 1983). Plaintiffs did not respond 

to defendants' arguments and fail to assert a valid exception to the statute of limitations bar. 

Sansome's Complaint also alleges that Fairall violated Sansome's due process rights by 

continuing the criminal investigation of Sansome in retaliation for exercising his right to counsel. 

However, Fairall's alleged conduct occurred in 2011, and this claim, to the extent it is 

cognizable, likewise is barred by the statute of limitations. Id. 

In the Second Cause of Action, plaintiffs allege a claim under § 1983 for violations of 

their substantive rights against interference with familial relationships. Comp!. at 8. However, 

this claim is based on Fairall's conduct in 2011 and 2012 and is also time-barred. Sain, 309 F.3d 

at 1139. 

In the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, plaintiffs assert state law claims of malicious 

prosecution and interference in family relationships. Comp!. at 9-10. Given the dismissal of 

plaintiffs' § 1983 claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state 

law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 

Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (the Fifth Amendment's Due Process 

Clause applies only to the federal government). 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-02267-AA Document 25 Filed 05/22/16 Page 3 of 4
CONCLUSION 

Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (docs. 16 and 21) are GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs' state law claims are 

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this~ of May, 2016. 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-02267-AA Document 25 Filed 05/22/16 Page 4 of 4