Gillette v. Malheur Cnty.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:14-CV-01542-SU |
| Parties | SWEENEY GILLETTE, KENDRA GILLETTE, and RICHARD HOYT, Plaintiffs, v. MALHEUR COUNTY, ROBERT SPEELMAN, KIRK B. MILLER, LYNN GIBSON, DAWN SCHOOLEY, LARRY HAYHURST, JACK NOBLE, RODGER HUFFMAN, GREG ROMANS, SHERIFF BRIAN WOLFE, TRAVIS JOHNSON, BOB WROTEN, DR. BILL BARTON, KENNETH HOOVER, JEFF ANDERSON, 6 UNKNOWN JANE DOES, and 6 UNKNOWN JOHN DOES, personally and individually, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Sweeney Gillette, Kendra Gillette, and Richard Hoyt filed this second amended complaint against Malheur County, fourteen government employees in Oregon, Idaho, and Colorado, and twelve unknown defendants. Plaintiffs allege constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and pendent state law claims. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint for "failure to state a claim" in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Rule 8, and lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs oppose the motions. For the following reasons, plaintiffs' federal claims should be dismissed with prejudice. With the federal claims dismissed, the Court lacks a sound basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. The state claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on September 26, 2014 and filed a first amended complaint on November 19, 2014. Compl. (Doc. #1); 1st Am. Compl. (Doc. #5). This Court dismissed the first amended complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a "a short and plain statement of [each] claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and that "each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & 8(d)(1). The Court determined that the first amended complaint was "so verbose, confused and redundant that its true substance, if any, [was] well disguised." Order on Mot. Dismiss 1st Am. Compl., at 8 (Doc. #42) (quoting Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008)). The Court, however, granted leave to amend. On June 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed the present second amended complaint ("SAC"). 2d Am. Compl. (Doc. #43). The SAC provides a clearer factual narrative but remains lengthy—68 pages long—and confusing.1
The SAC names as defendants Malheur County, Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe, Malheur County Sheriff's sergeant Robert Speelman, and four deputies, Travis Johnson, Greg Romans, Bob Wroten, and Jeff Anderson. Plaintiffs name four Idaho Department of Agriculture employees, Lynn Gibson, Dawn Schooley, Larry Hayhurst, and Bill Barton as well as two Oregon Department of Agriculture employees, Jack Noble and Roger Huffman. The SAC names an Idaho U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA") investigator, Kirk Miller, and a Colorado USDA investigator, Kenneth Hoover. The SAC also names twelve unidentified "Doe" defendants. 2d Am. Compl., at 3-6 (Doc. #43). Plaintiffs allege that all defendants violated their constitutional rights and committed several state law torts during a multi-year investigation of plaintiffs for alleged cattle theft.
All defendants have filed motions to dismiss based upon Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim. Oral argument took place on January 15, 2016. The Court allowed plaintiffs' attorney to file a supplemental brief supporting various arguments made at oral argument. All defendants were permitted to respond. Tr. at 110 (Doc. #75).
As this is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must assume all facts alleged in the complaint are true and view them in a light most favorable to plaintiff. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). However, the Court need not accept as true plaintiffs' conclusory statements, threadbare recitation of the elements of their claims, or legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Accordingly, the Court summarizes pertinent facts and allegations as follows.
Plaintiffs Sweeney and Kendra Gillette, a married couple, and plaintiff Richard Hoyt, Kendra Gillette's father, resided in Malheur County during the events that gave rise to the SAC. 2d Am. Compl., at 2-3 (Doc. #43). The Gillettes bought and sold cattle, owned a feedlot in Malheur County, and pastured cattle in Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada. 2d Am. Compl., at 2, 8, 13, 16. Hoyt owned a trucking business which transported the Gillettes' cattle. 2d Am. Compl., at 2. Defendants include the sheriff of Malheur County and several employees of the department. Other defendants are government officials and inspectors whose duties relate to inspecting and certifying cattle in accordance with federal and state law and administrative regulations. Both Oregon and Idaho law require that cattle be inspected for ownership at various times, including when they change ownership, cross state lines, and before slaughter. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 604.046(1); Idaho Code §§ 25-1120, 25-1121. The ownership inspections, generally called brand inspections, are aimed at catching and preventing theft. In addition, Oregon and Idaho as well as the USDA require health inspections and grant veterinarians and health inspectors broad authority to enter private property and inspect and manage cattle for disease. See Idaho Code § 25-210; Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 596.020, 596.341, 596.388; OAR 603-011-0255; 7 U.S.C. §§ 8307, 8708.
According to the SAC, plaintiffs had publicly advocated for the USDA to discontinue the currentsystem of tracking cattle using brands and government brand inspectors in favor of a system of electronic identification through ear-tags. 2d Am. Compl., at 14, 49; Sweeney Gillette Decl., at 1-3. Plaintiffs allege that they publicly expressed their opinions in "various forums, including newspapers, letters in support of legislation, statements made directly to the head of the Oregon Department of Agriculture (at Cattlemen's Association Meetings)" which were also attended by defendants Huffman, Miller, and Hoover. 2d Am. Compl., at 49-50. Plaintiffs allege that all defendants opposed plaintiffs' opinions and investigated and harassed plaintiffs in retaliation for the opinions, in order to protect their own interests. 2d Am. Compl., at 49-50. Specifically, the SAC states that in a September 2011 newspaper letter and at a December 2011 Cattlemen's Association meeting, Kendra Gillette publicly advocated for an electronic identification system for livestock.2 2d. Am. Compl., at 14. However, plaintiffs allege some of the defendants began investigating them as early as July 2010 and that the multi- agency investigation began December 2010. 2d Am Compl., at 7; Pls.' Suppl. Br., at 4 (Doc. #76).
Plaintiffs assert that defendants "acted jointly as members and associates of the Malheur County 'Oregon Livestock and Rural Crime Investigation Association'" and investigated plaintiffs over several years but never charged them with a crime. 2d Am. Compl., at 30-31, 35. Starting in 2010, defendants allegedly performed unnecessary and intrusive health and brand inspections on plaintiffs' cattle while theywere in transit, pastured, awaiting slaughter, and after lease and sale to third parties and did so on repeated occasions. See, e.g., 2d Am. Compl., at 8, 9, 11-13, 15-17, 19. Plaintiffs allege that during inspections, defendants applied excessive force in handling and shaving cattle to view branding marks, resulting in the death and devaluation of many animals. See, e.g., 2d Am. Compl., at 8, 12, 14, 19, 37. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants used false information to obtain surveillance and search warrants for plaintiffs' property. 2d Am. Compl., at 7, 16-17, 39. Plaintiffs allege the Malheur County Sheriff's Office, the Oregon Brand Department, and the USDA executed a search warrant on September 26, 2012, searching plaintiffs' homes and their feedlot. 2d Am. Compl., at 17. Plaintiffs allege that defendants seized items not listed in the search warrant and "not reasonably related to their alleged purpose of searching for evidence of stolen cattle" and failed to return items despite a court order. 2d Am. Compl., at 37. 3
Plaintiffs allege that, in the course of the investigation, defendants repeatedly defamed plaintiffs and encouraged plaintiffs' business contacts to end their relationships with plaintiffs. 2d Am. Compl., at 8-9, 14-17, 19, 20-21, 23. Several of plaintiffs' claims concern their "contractual relationship with D.L. Evans Bank, with which Plaintiffs had a contract providing for loans for the purpose of buying and selling cattle." 2d Am. Compl., at 25. Plaintiffs allege that one of the Malheur County defendants, Speelman, "provided false information that Plaintiffs were being investigated for cattle theft and that they would soon be charged with crimes and suggested the bank should secure its interest in the cattle." 2d Am Compl., at 56.Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of Speelman's encouragement, the bank accelerated plaintiffs' loan and repossessed their cattle in January 2013, resulting in more than $500,000 in losses for the plaintiffs. 2d Am. Compl., at 19-20. Plaintiffs allege that Idaho state health and brand inspectors participated in the bank's seizure and the subsequent relocation of plaintiffs' cattle from Oregon to Idaho. 2d Am. Compl., at 19-20.
Essentially, plaintiffs factual allegations can be summarized as: (1) retaliation by defendants against plaintiffs for statements made by plaintiffs; (2) an investigation by defendants which resulted in damages to plaintiffs' business; (3) a conspiracy by defendants to obtain and execute illegal search warrants on plaintiffs' property; and (4) defendants' interference with plaintiffs' business relations with their lending bank which resulted in repossession of plaintiffs' cattle and damage to their business. Based on these factual allegations, plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial