Hejazi v. Eugene Municipal Court ( 2022 )

306
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted July 1, affirmed October 5, 2022
Hamid Michael HEJAZI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EUGENE MUNICIPAL COURT,
Eugene Police, and City of Eugene,
Defendants-Respondents,
and
LANE COUNTY ADULT CORRECTIONS
and Lane County,
Defendants.
Lane County Circuit Court
21CV02353; A176343
Suzanne B. Chanti, Senior Judge.
Hamid Michael Hejazi filed the brief pro se.
Ben Miller filed the brief for respondents.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
HELLMAN, J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 322 Or App 306 (2022) 307
HELLMAN, J.
Plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s limited
judgment that granted defendants’ motion to dismiss his
complaint for failure to state a claim under ORCP 21 A(8)
(2021).1 On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred
in granting the motion to dismiss and further erred when it
did so without granting him leave to amend his complaint.
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for fail-
ure to state a claim under former ORCP 21 A(8) for legal
error. Rivas v. Board of Parole, 277 Or App 76, 78, 369 P3d
1239 (2016). In conducting that review, we assume the truth
of the allegations in the complaint, including any inferences
that can be drawn from them. Id. We also view the allega-
tions in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.The trial court did not commit legal error in dis-
missing the complaint. Although plaintiff argues otherwise,
the record supports the trial court’s characterization of the
complaint as containing a single paragraph that sets out
numerous theories of liability, accompanied by a statement
of facts that are not linked to the individual theories of lia-
bility. As such, the complaint did not comply with former
ORCP 16 C2 or UTCR 2.010(11)(b) (2010).3 Additionally, we
find no legal error in the reasoning given by the trial court
for dismissing several of the claims, including that they were
not cognizable under Oregon law or that plaintiff failed to
allege facts that were necessary to prevail. We note that in
considering this case the trial court correctly relied upon
ORCP 12 A and B in its analysis.
We agree with defendants that plaintiff did not pre-
serve his claim regarding the trial court’s failure to grant
him leave to amend the complaint because he did not raise
it below. ORAP 5.45(1); Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219,
191 P3d 637 (2008). Plaintiff does not ask for plain error
1
The rule has since been renumbered to ORCP 21 A(1)(h) without any change
in substance. We cite to the version of the rule in existence at the time the trial
court issued its decision in this case.
2
Although the trial court cited to ORCP 16 B in its opinion, the quotation
that it relied upon was taken from ORCP 16 C which is the applicable rule for this
situation.
3
This rule has also since been renumbered to UTCR 2.010(10)(b).
308 
review and even if he did, the errors claimed in his brief do
not meet the standard for plain error review. See State v.
Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).
Affirmed.