Todd v. Boyd

JOHN H. TODD, Plaintiff, v. DONNIE BOYD, KELLEY MINTY MORRIS, and DERRICK DeGROOT,Individually and in Their Official Official Capacity as Klamath County Commissioners,GALE A. MCMAHON, KLAMATH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,KLAMATH COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DAN BUNCH,Individually and in His Official Capacity as Klamath County Circuit Judge,ROGER ISAACS, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Klamath County Circuit Judge,MICHAEL MCSHANE, Individually and in His Official Capacity as U.S. District Court Judge,U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR OREGON, THOMAS CLEARLY,Individually and In His Official Capacity as Multnomah County Assistant District Attorney,ELLEN ROSENBLUM, Individually And in Her Official Capacity as Oregon Attorney General,KATE BROWN, Individually and in Her Official Capacity As Governor ofthe State of Oregon And Chief Executive Officer, DOUG McINNIS,KLAMATH ANIMAL SHELTER, OREGON HUMANE SOCIETY,and LAURA CALDERA TAYLOR, Defendants.

No. 3:19-cv-02029-HZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

March 29, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

John H. Todd

P.O. Box 608

Chiloquin, OR 97624

Pro Se Plaintiff

Gerald Warren

Aaron Hisel

Law Office of Gerald L. Warren and Associates

901 Capitol Street NE

Salem, OR 97301

Attorneys for Defendants Boyd, Morris, DeGroot, McMahon, and Klamath County Sheriff's Department

Jessica Spooner

State of Oregon

Department of Justice

1162 Court St. NE

Salem, OR 97301

Attorney for Defendants Bunch, Isaacs, Clearly, Rosenblum, Brown, and Klamath County District Attorney's Office

Sarah Kanwit Morehead

DOJ-USAO

700 Stewart Street

Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101

Attorney for Defendant McShane

Alison M. Milne

U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Oregon

1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600

Portland, OR 97204

Attorney for Defendant U.S. Attorney's Office for Oregon

Drake A. Hood

Brisbee & Stockton

139 N.E. Lincoln Street

P.O. Box 567

Hillsboro, OR 97124

Attorney for Defendant McInnis

George A. Burgott

Luvaas Cobb

777 High Street

Suite 300

Eugene, OR 97401

Attorney for Defendant Klamath Animal Shelter

Graham M. Sweitzer

Harrang Long Gary Rudnick, PC

1050 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1600

Portland, OR 97204-1116

Attorney for Defendant Oregon Humane Society

Janet Marie Schroer

Hart Wagner, LLP

1000 SW Broadway

Suite 2000

Portland, OR 97205

Attorney for Defendant Laura Caldera Taylor

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Plaintiff John Todd brings claims against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 for violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. Defendants Bunch, Isaacs, Clearly (Defendant Cleary), Rosenblum, Brown, and Klamath County DistrictAttorney's Office ("State Defendants") move for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims. The remaining Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants Defendants' motions.

BACKGROUND

In June 2015, Klamath County Circuit Judge Roger Isaacs issued a search warrant requested by Defendant McMahon, an animal control officer, to search Plaintiff's property. Compl. at 5-6, ECF 1. In executing the search on Plaintiff's property on June 15, 2015, Officer McMahon and other Klamath County employees seized more than one hundred cats from Plaintiff's home. Id. at 7. They also removed items from Plaintiff's home that were not listed on the search warrant. Id. at 6. Those items included what Plaintiff characterizes as "exculpatory evidence," id. at 6, and included prescription pet medicine, pet carriers, cases of canned cat food, sacks of dry cat food, and the cats. Id. at 10. Plaintiff alleges that McMahon and others failed to inventory the property, provide receipts, and did not safeguard and protect the seized property as required by state law. Id. at 10. Plaintiff claims that Judge Isaacs should not have issued the search warrant because state law provides that only qualified police officers can apply for a search warrant. Id. at 11. Plaintiff also alleges that McMahon lacked legal authority to conduct the search while armed with a firearm because McMahon is not a qualified police officer. Id. Plaintiff alleges that McMahon threatened him with the firearm during the search. Id. at 10.

The State of Oregon brought criminal charges against Plaintiff based on the evidence obtained during the search. During the criminal case, the court ordered that Plaintiff's property be returned to him, and it never was returned. Id. at 7-9. Plaintiff alleges that Klamath County Circuit Court Judge Bunch committed errors in deciding Plaintiff's motion for return of his personal property. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant McMahon committed perjuryduring the criminal proceedings. Id. at 8. Plaintiff alleges that County Commissioners, Klamath County Sheriff's Department, Governor Brown, and Attorney General Rosenblum failed to adequately investigate and enforce the order for return of his personal property. Id. at 9. Plaintiff alleges that the Klamath County District Attorney's Office committed Brady violations by failing to produce to Plaintiff exculpatory evidence. Id.

Plaintiff filed suit in the Medford Division of this district alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the seizure of his cats and other property. Id. at 11. That case was assigned to Judge Michael McShane, who ultimately dismissed the case. Id. at 12. Plaintiff alleges that Judge McShane failed to uphold and respect the law by dismissing his case and threatening to order sanctions against Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Caldera Taylor (Defendant Caldera), who represented Oregon Humane Society, misrepresented to the court in that case that Plaintiff had surrendered each of his cats even though fifteen of the cats had no surrender paperwork. Id. at 14-15.

Plaintiff's First Claim for Relief alleges that Defendants Boyd, Minty Morris, and DeGroot engaged in a "RICO Enterprise" with McMahon when they conspired to conceal McMahon's conversion of Plaintiff's property in an effort to protect Klamath County and the State of Oregon from civil liability for the loss of Plaintiff's property. Id. at 16. Plaintiff alleges that the result of the conspiracy was that the Klamath County Circuit Court denied Plaintiff's motion for sanctions for contempt on May 9, 2019. Id. Plaintiff seeks damages of $2,500 in attorney's fees plus $500 per day since December 18, 2018, representing $500 in damages for every day that Plaintiff has been without his property since the court ordered the State of Oregon to return it to him. Id. at 16-17.

Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief against Klamath County District Attorney's Office seeks an award of damages for a Brady violation for failing to produce McMahon's deposition in Plaintiff's criminal case and presenting false evidence in civil proceedings. Id. at 17-18. Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief alleges that the Klamath County Sheriff's Department conducted an unlawful search by allowing McMahon, who was not a law enforcement officer, to execute the search warrant on Plaintiff's home; allowed McMahon to perform law enforcement duties like carrying a firearm when McMahon was not qualified to do so; and conspired with Klamath County Commissioners to conceal the county's and McMahon's violations of the law. Id. at 18-20.

Plaintiff's Fourth Claim for Relief alleges that Defendant Bunch, a Klamath County Circuit Court Judge, violated Plaintiff's state and federal due process rights when Judge Bunch disregarded the law, failed to acquaint himself with the law, let the state's attorney argue that Plaintiff's motion for contempt should hold the assistant district attorney, not the State of Oregon, in contempt, agreeing to hold the assistant district attorney in contempt instead of the State of Oregon, for doing nothing after "becoming aware" that the state had presented misleading testimony at the contempt hearing, and for failing to enter an appealable judgment in his contempt case. Id. 20-23. Plaintiff seeks an order commanding Judge Bunch to vacate his May 10, 2019 Opinion Letter, issue declaratory relief as the court deems appropriate, and to allow an unbiased court to hear Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for Contempt against the State of Oregon. Id. at 24.

Plaintiff's Fifth Claim for Relief against Defendant Isaacs, a Klamath County Circuit Court Judge, alleges that Judge Isaacs violated Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights when he issued a search warrant to McMahon, who is not a law enforcement officer. Id. at 25-26.Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief directing Judge Isaacs to vacate his June 12, 2015 issuance for a search warrant for Plaintiff's home and declaratory relief as the Court deems appropriate. Id. at 26.

Plaintiff's Sixth Claim for Relief alleges that Defendant McShane, a United States District Judge, violated Plaintiff's due process rights in Todd v. McMahon, No. 1:15-cv-01091-MC, when Judge McShane disregarded Oregon laws relating to the issuance of search warrants, refusing to allow oral argument, dismissed Plaintiff's case without addressing all of Plaintiff's arguments, and retaliated against Plaintiff by withdrawing his in forma pauperis status. Id. at 26-28. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief directing Judge McShane to vacate his orders in Todd v. McMahon, No. 1:15-cv-01091-MC, allow filings in that case to be heard by an unbiased decisionmaker, and issue other relief as the Court deems appropriate. Id. at 28.

Plaintiff's Seventh Claim for Relief alleges that the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon conspired with the Klamath County District Attorney's office to deprive Plaintiff of due process and equal protection under the law when they concealed and covered up McMahon's false statements made in a declaration filed in Todd v. McMahon, No. 1:15-cv-01091-MC, refused to charge McMahon with perjury, and concealed the existence of McMahon's deposition in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Plaintiff alleges a Bivens action in which he seeks injunctive, declaratory, or other relief as the Court...