Sargent v. Michael et al

1 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION
SHANON SARGENT,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00133-YY
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
v.
OFFICER MICHAEL, OFFICER RYAN,
OFFICER OSBORN, and OFFICER
WHITENMOOR,
Defendants.
FINDINGS
Plaintiff, an adult formerly in custody at the Josephine County Jail (the “Jail”), brings this
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as a self-represented litigant. Defendants have filed “Rules
41 and 12 Motions” (ECF 22) in which they move to dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims, except her
claim that defendants Michael, Ryan, and Osburn violated her right to bodily privacy, for failure
to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). They also move to dismiss
the case due to insufficient service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5). ECF 22. For the reasons
that follow, defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted and plaintiff’s case should be
allowed to proceed only on the bodily privacy claim against defendants Michael, Ryan, and
Osburn. As for the motion to dismiss for lack of service, that motion should be denied without
prejudice so that plaintiff has another opportunity to properly serve the remaining defendants.
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YY Document 34 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 6

2 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. 	Procedural Background
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint alleging claims arising from her
incarceration at the Jail between April 29, 2022, and June 22, 2022. ECF 2. In screening the case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court concluded that plaintiff stated a Fourteenth Amendment
bodily privacy claim against defendants Michael, Ryan, and Osburn, but failed to state a claim
against defendant Whitenmoore. Order to Amend, ECF 5. Plaintiff’s remaining claims consisted
of conclusory statements, and did not allege facts establishing plaintiff personally suffered the
alleged deprivations or that any of the named defendants were involved in the alleged
deprivations. Id. Due to plaintiff’s pro se status, the court granted plaintiff leave to file an
Amended Complaint and advised her that if she failed to cure the deficiencies, this action would
proceed solely on her bodily privacy claim against defendants Michael, Ryan, and Osburn. Id.
Plaintiff thereafter filed an Amended Complaint that suffers from the same deficiencies noted in
the court’s prior Order to Amend.
II. 	Rule 8 and Rule 12(b) Standards
A complaint, or claims contained in a complaint, may be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. F ED. R. C IV. P. 12(b)(6). Regardless of whether the
plaintiff has paid a filing fee, this court may dismiss a complaint that is frivolous or fails to state
a claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (“Notwithstanding any filing fee, . . . the court
shall dismiss the case at any time of the court determine that . . . the action . . . is frivolous [or]
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”).
The complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader
is entitled to relief[.]” FED. R. C IV. P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed factual allegations are not
required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YY Document 34 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 6

3 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This requires
sufficient factual detail to allow the court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged. See Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
When reviewing a complaint or its claims, the court accepts as true the factual allegations
in the complaint, construes the complaint liberally, and resolves all doubts in the plaintiff’s
favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339
F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). A court, however, is not required to accept as true conclusory
allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. W. Mining Council v.
Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
III. 	Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint consists of the court’s form “Complaint for Violation of
Civil Rights (Prisoner Complaint)” with an attached 14-page narrative statement describing the
alleged conditions of her confinement at the Jail. The form complaint refers only to an alleged
violation of plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, and the attached narrative
statement refers to the Eighth Amendment, and possibly the First and Sixth Amendments. The
narrative statement initially references plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment bodily privacy claim,
and then goes on to discuss in serial fashion numerous other issues, including the alleged
placement in an unsanitary cell for extended periods of time, failure to treat for withdrawal
symptoms and other medical and mental health issues, placement in a restraint chair, exposure to
pepper spray, denial of the ability to file a PREA report and other grievances, denial of access to
a law library and to plaintiff’s criminal attorney, and denial of access to religious services. The
narrative statement often refers to “defendants Whitenmore, Osburn, Michael, Ryan”
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YY Document 34 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 6

4 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
collectively, but plaintiff generally does not identify which specific individual(s) are associated
with her various allegations.
As the court previously advised plaintiff, Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint must include
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Also,
“[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.” FED. R. C IV. P. 8(e). The
purpose of Rule 8 is to ensure that a complaint “fully sets forth who is being sued, for what
relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). The court may dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8
when it “is so verbose, confused, and redundant that its true substance, if any is well disguised.”
Gillibeau v. Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969).
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to comport with the requirements of Rule 8(a).
Instead, it suffers from the same defects as the original Complaint. Once again, many of
plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory, and she includes facts regarding multiple unrelated issues.
Such allegations, in a narrative format and referencing multiple causes of action, are insufficient
to state legally cognizable claims. See, e.g., Pinzon v. Jensen, 2009 WL 231164, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
Jan. 30, 2009) (“Although Plaintiff attempts to allege many causes of action and provides a
description of his alleged experiences, his narrative-style complaint is insufficient to state legally
cognizable causes of action. It is Plaintiff’s burden, not that of the court [or defendants] to
separately identify claims and state facts in support of each claim.”).
IV. 	Insufficient Service
Defendant Osburn was not served, as he no longer works at the Josephine County Jail.
See ECF 13. Defendants Michael and Ryan were not properly served because the summons was
provided to a “police tech in the civil division” of the Jail. See ECF 15, 16. Pursuant to Rule 4(e),
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YY Document 34 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 6

service may be made by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in
courts of general jurisdiction where the district court is located or where service is made,” or by
(1) personal service, (2) leaving a copy at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode, or
(3) delivering a copy with an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of
process. None of those things occurred here. Therefore, service is invalid. However, as part of
the order on defendants’ motions, plaintiff can be directed to resubmit service documents to the
Clerk’s Office so that service by the United States Marshals may be attempted again.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants “Rules 41 & 12 Motions” (ECF 22) should be granted in that all claims should
be dismissed except for plaintiff’s claim for bodily privacy against defendants Michael, Ryan,
and Osburn. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of service should be denied without
prejudice so that plaintiff has another opportunity to serve the remaining defendants. Plaintiff
should be directed to provide summonses, copies of the Amended Complaint, and completed
Form USM-285 to the Clerk’s Office within 21 days.
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if
any, are due Thursday, December 11, 2025. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and
Recommendations will go under advisement on that date.
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 Recommendations will go under advisement.
//
//
5 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YY Document 34 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 6

6 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
NOTICE
These Findings and Recommendations are 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 November 20, 2025.
/s/ Youlee Yim You
Youlee Yim You
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YY Document 34 Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 6