Kristina Marie Stafford v. Carol Klier, et al.

D. Oregon

Kristina Marie Stafford v. Carol Klier, et al.

DecidedJanuary 12, 2026

Docket6:25-cv-01823

StatusUnknown

This text of Kristina Marie Stafford v. Carol Klier, et al. (Kristina Marie Stafford v. Carol Klier, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kristina Marie Stafford v. Carol Klier, et al., (D. Or. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KRISTINA MARIE STAFFORD, Case No. 6:25-cv-01823-JR Plaintiff, ORDER TO DISMISS v.

CAROL KLIER, et al.,

Defendants.

BAGGIO, District Judge

Plaintiff, an adult in custody at the Douglas County Jail, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as a self-represented litigant. On December 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 10) finding that plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and requiring plaintiff to show cause why it should not be summarily dismissed as required under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s Response to Order Show Cause (ECF No. 10), which includes a proposed Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s Response and proposed Amended Complaint fail to cure the deficiencies noted in Judge Russo’s Order to Show Cause. Specifically, although plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint eliminates all but three of the defendants identified in her original Complaint, plaintiff continues to assert claims that are barred under the principles of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and asserts damages claims against two defendants who are entitled to absolute immunity, the state judge and assistant district attorney. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated any basis upon which dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is not required, and this action must be dismissed. CONCLUSION For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because it is clear that deficiencies of plaintiff's Complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the dismissal is with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 12th day of January 2026.

Amy M. Baggio United States District Judge

1 To the extent plaintiff's claims are barred under Heck, dismissal is without prejudice. See Washington v. L.A. County Sheriff's Dep’t, 883 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2016) (“a Heck dismissal is made without prejudice’’). 2 — ORDER TO DISMISS

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KRISTINA MARIE STAFFORD, Case No. 6:25-cv-01823-JR Plaintiff, ORDER TO DISMISS v.

CAROL KLIER, et al.,

Defendants.

BAGGIO, District Judge

Plaintiff, an adult in custody at the Douglas County Jail, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as a self-represented litigant. On December 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 10) finding that plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and requiring plaintiff to show cause why it should not be summarily dismissed as required under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s Response to Order Show Cause (ECF No. 10), which includes a proposed Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s Response and proposed Amended Complaint fail to cure the deficiencies noted in Judge Russo’s Order to Show Cause. Specifically, although plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint eliminates all but three of the defendants identified in her original Complaint, plaintiff continues to assert claims that are barred under the principles of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and asserts damages claims against two defendants who are entitled to absolute immunity, the state judge and assistant district attorney. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated any basis upon which dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is not required, and this action must be dismissed. CONCLUSION For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because it is clear that deficiencies of plaintiff's Complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the dismissal is with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 12th day of January 2026.

Amy M. Baggio United States District Judge

1 To the extent plaintiff's claims are barred under Heck, dismissal is without prejudice. See Washington v. L.A. County Sheriff's Dep’t, 883 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2016) (“a Heck dismissal is made without prejudice’’). 2 — ORDER TO DISMISS

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kristina Marie Stafford v. Carol Klier, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kristina-marie-stafford-v-carol-klier-et-al-ord-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack