United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DECLINING TO SERVE COMPLAINT AND GRANTING
PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND
Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge
Marvin Krona has submitted to this Court for filing a civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court,
having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, hereby finds and
ORDERS as follows:
Plaintiff is a Washington prisoner who is currently confined
at the Monroe Correctional Complex (MCC) - Special Offender
Unit (SOU). Plaintiff's claims are somewhat difficult to
discern, however, they appear to relate to a chance meeting
between plaintiff and his ex-fiancée in 2014 while
plaintiff was confined at the MCC - Twin Rivers Unit.
(See Dkt. 4-2 at 3.) According to plaintiff, his
ex-fiancée was working in the sex offender program at
the time he ran into her. (Id.) The ending of the
relationship was apparently quite difficult for plaintiff,
causing him to “spen[d] several years destroying
myself” following the break-up. (Dkt. 4-2 at 3.)
Plaintiff maintains that he was finally healing from that
experience when he ran into in the prison system.
(Id.) Plaintiff claims that he notified staff of his
encounter with his ex- fiancée immediately, but they
kept him at the same facility, housing him with sex
offenders, for an additional four months, which caused
“old wounds” related to the relationship to be
“ripped open.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends
that the DOC thereafter began “messing with” him,
which apparently included improperly confining him in a
mental health unit and interfering with his ability to obtain
work release. (Id.)
identifies the DOC (Department of Corrections), and four MCC
employees as defendants in this action. (See id. at
1-3.) Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court in the form of
an Order directing that he be sent to work release.
(Id. at 4.) He also seeks a “full
investigation” of his time spent in DOC custody.
order to sustain a cause of action under §1983 a
plaintiff must show (1) that he suffered a violation of
rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal
statute, and (2) that the violation was proximately caused by
a person acting under color of state or federal law. See
Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
To satisfy the second prong, a plaintiff must allege facts
showing how individually named defendants caused or
personally participated in causing the harm alleged in the
complaint. See Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355
(9th Cir. 1981). A defendant cannot be held liable solely on
the basis of supervisory responsibility or position.
Monell v. Department of Social Servs., of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658, 691-694 (1978). Rather, a plaintiff
must allege that a defendant's own conduct violated his
civil rights. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489
U.S. 378, 385-90 (1989).
Court declines to order that plaintiff's complaint be
served on defendants because the complaint is deficient in
the following respects:
Plaintiff identifies the DOC as a defendant in the caption of
his complaint. However, the United States Supreme Court has
made clear that states and state agencies are not
“persons” subject to suit under § 1983.
See Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491
U.S. 58 (1989). In addition, it is well established that,
under the Eleventh Amendment, an unconsenting state is immune
from suits brought in federal courts by its own citizens.
See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974).
The State of Washington has not waived its Eleventh Amendment
immunity for suits such as the one presented here. See
Whiteside v. State of Washington, 534 F.Supp. 774 (D.C.
Wash. 1982). Because the DOC is an agency of the State of
Washington, any intended claim against the DOC is essentially
one against the state itself and is therefore barred under
the Eleventh Amendment. See Regents of the University of
California v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429-31 (1997).
Plaintiff does not identify in his complaint the federal
constitutional right he believes was violated by the conduct
of defendants, and the facts alleged do not appear to
implicate federal constitutional concerns. As far as this
Court can discern, plaintiff's complaints involve his
housing designation and/or classification status at MCC, and
the fact that he has not been sent to work release. However,
a prisoner does not have a protected liberty interest in the
location of his confinement, Meachum v. Fano, 427
U.S. 215, 223-27 (1976), nor does he have a liberty interest
in a particular classification status, Hernandez v.
Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing
Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976)). The Ninth
Circuit has also made clear that a prisoner has no
constitutional right to rehabilitation and, thus, no
constitutional right to participation in a work release
program. See Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d
1218, 1221 (9th Cir. 1989). If plaintiff wishes to
proceed with this action, he must identify a viable federal
Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts showing how each
named defendant personally participated in causing the harm
alleged in the complaint. Assuming plaintiff is able to
identify a viable claim for relief, he will also have to set
forth specific facts demonstrating that each named defendant
personally participated in causing him harm of federal
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint curing the above
noted deficiencies within thirty (30)
days of the date on which this Order is signed.
The amended complaint must carry the same case number as this
one. If no amended complaint is timely filed, the Court will
recommend that this action be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
is advised that an amended pleading operates as a
complete substitute for an original pleading.
See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th
Cir.) (citing Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner
& Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (as
amended), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). Thus,
any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendant(s),
the constitutional claim(s) asserted, the specific facts
which plaintiff believes support each claim, and the specific
Clerk is directed to send plaintiff the appropriate forms so
that he may file an amended complaint. The Clerk is further
directed to send copies of this Order ...