Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Latourette v. Washington Department of Corrections

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

October 23, 2014

MICHAEL LATOURETTE, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 132); Defendants Carroll Riddle ("Riddle"), Joseph Daracunas ("Daracunas"), and Earl Richardson's ("Richardson") objections to the R&R (Dkt. 133); and Plaintiff Michael Latourette's ("Latourette") objections to the R&R (Dkt. 134).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 25, 2014, Judge Creatura issued the R&R recommending that the Court grant Defendants Clallam Bay Corrections Center, Joseph Daracunas, Ron Fraker, Amber Miller, Richardson, Riddle, Eldon Vail, Bernie Warner, and Washington Department of Corrections's motion for summary judgment as to all Defendants except Riddle, Daracunas, and Richardson. Dkt. 132. Judge Creatura concluded that (1) material questions of fact existed on Latourette's Eight Amendment claim against Defendants Riddle, Daracunas, and Richardson ("Defendants") ( id. at 11-15) and (2) Latourette had failed to meet his burden on his claims for inadequate medical care ( id. at 15).

On September 5, 2014, Defendants filed objections. Dkt. 133. On September 11, 2014, Latourette filed objections. Dkt. 134. On September 19, 2014, Defendants responded. Dkt. 135. On September 22, 2014, Latourette responded. Dkt. 136.

The facts are sufficiently set forth in the R&R. Any additional facts will be cited when considering the parties' particular objections below.

II. DISCUSSION

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

A. Defendants' Objections

In this case, Defendants object to the R&R as follows: (1) J Unit was not two officers short on April 5, 2009; (2) there are no facts to support the inference that Daracunas waited five minutes to make his radio call; (3) nothing in the record supports an inference that Defendants Riddle or Richardson were deliberately indifferent; and (4) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

1. J Unit

Defendants argue that Judge Creatura erred when he concluded that "J unit was effectively two officers short." Dkt. 133 at 3-4. First, Judge Creatura did not reach that conclusion because the R&R states, in full, that "Plaintiff states, based on these facts that at the time of the assault J Unit was effectively two officers short." Dkt. 132 at 7. Judge Creatura was citing Latourette's argument and was not reaching his own conclusion. Therefore, Defendants' objection on this issue is without merit.

Judge Creatura, however, did conclude that the J Unit was "understaffed" when Hans Hale, the assailant, was released into the unit. Dkt. 132 at 8. Even if this conclusion is not properly supported by the facts, Defendants fail to show how the error changes the analysis on the issue of liability. In fact, Defendants simply argue that jurors shouldn't be allowed to second-guess the staffing decisions at the prison. Dkt. 133 at 4. Such an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.