Calvin J. Jackson Jr. v. Erin Reyes, Rumsey, Joe Bugher, Nurse Cindy Dieter, Nurse Johnston

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Calvin J. Jackson Jr.’s claims arising from his alleged exclusion from Oregon’s “Take Your Shot, Oregon!” COVID-19 vaccination lottery. The court held that the complaint failed to allege the defendants’ personal involvement, a plausible equal protection or conspiracy claim, or facts overcoming qualified immunity. The court also dismissed the fraudulent concealment claim for failure to satisfy applicable pleading requirements, while allowing any motion to amend within 30 days.

Holdings

1. A § 1983 plaintiff must plead specific facts showing each individual defendant's affirmative act, participation, or legally required omission caused the alleged constitutional deprivation. Jackson's generalized allegations against defendants did not satisfy that requirement.
2. A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires allegations supporting an agreement or concerted action among participants sharing a common unlawful objective; generalized references to defendants do not suffice.
3. Jackson failed to state an equal-protection claim because he did not plead intentional discrimination, intentional differential treatment from similarly situated persons, or the absence of a rational basis for the lottery's telephone-number requirement.
4. Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Jackson did not identify a clearly established constitutional right to participate in a state lottery or authority placing officials on notice that the alleged conduct violated federal law.
5. The state-law claim failed because the complaint did not plead the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged misconduct, identify a false or misleading statement, or allege the elements of fraud, including reliance and resulting injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that any individual defendant personally participated in or caused a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the complaint stated a class-of-one or other Equal Protection Clause claim based on Jackson's exclusion from the state vaccination lottery.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims.
4. Whether the state-law fraud or fraudulent-concealment claim satisfied the applicable pleading requirements.
5. Whether the Oregon Tort Claims Act and its damages provisions barred or limited the state-law claim.

Disposition

dismissed