Credit v. Bonner, 3:11-cv-00661

Plaintiff LaToya Credit proceeds pro se on behalf of herself and three children; seeks in forma pauperis status, which is provisionally confirmed but no process issued pending further order.
Defendants are the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS), the Juvenile Detention Center, and Don Bonner, an ODHS case worker.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction and restraining order to prevent removal of her children due to alleged failure to keep them enrolled in public school.
Plaintiffs attach documents including a restraining order allegedly signed by a Multnomah County Circuit Judge and a claim of sexual assault by Bonner in exchange for not initiating child removal.
Court analyzes jurisdiction, sovereign immunity of state agencies, and whether §1983 claims or a copyright claim are plead with sufficient facts; Rule 17(c) issues also arise because minors are plaintiffs and she has not shown proper representation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ODHS and the Juvenile Detention Center are subject to suit in §1983.	Plaintiff contends civil rights violations by state actors.	ODHS and JDC are immune as state agencies.	Dismissed with prejudice as to ODHS and JDC.
Whether Bonner acted under color of state law and which rights were violated.	Bonner removed children and sexual contact violated rights.	Plaintiff must allege specific rights and state action.	Requires more specific §1983 pleading; claims insufficient as currently alleged.
Whether there is a plausible copyright infringement claim.	Credit asserts ownership and copying of protected work.	No factual basis for infringement alleged.	Plaintiff fails to state a copyright claim.
Whether the minor plaintiffs can properlty sue and whether Rule 17(c) representation is adequate.	Mother can sue on behalf of her children.	Plaintiff failed to allege proper next friend/guardian ad litem status.	Dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 17(c) representation.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (U.S. 1993) (sovereign immunity principles apply to state agencies in §1983 actions)
Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358 (9th Cir. 2004) (state agencies entitled to immunity from suit in §1983 actions)
Will v. Michigan Dep't. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (state is not a person under §1983)
American Mfr. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1999) (elements of a §1983 claim)
Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007) (due process in parental rights and child custody context)
Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2001) (analysis of bodily integrity rights under Fourteenth Amendment)
Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) (copyright infringement pleading standards)