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.

Deogracias v. Department of Corrections

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

November 27, 2017

JOJO EJONGA DEOGRACIAS, Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LEON N. KERSHAW, CAROLEE ROOP, SUPERINTENDENT DONALD HOLBROOK, BILL HAMBY, and FOUR UNKNOWN DOC STAFF, Defendants.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ROBERT J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. Dkt. 60. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, objections, if any, and the remaining file, and is fully advised.

         Originally filed on October 29, 2015, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed this civil rights case alleging that Defendants Washington State Department of Corrections (“DOC”), Leon Kershaw, and Carolee Roop violated his constitutional rights when they failed to protect him from another inmate, when he was placed in administrative segregation for around seven days without being given a hearing, and when they failed to provide him adequate medical care. Dkt. 6.

         In response to Defendants DOC, Kershaw and Roop's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint. Dkt. 19. Plaintiff was granted until March 9, 2016 to file a proposed amended complaint. Dkt. 21. Plaintiff did not do so. Instead, on March 30, 2016, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss his claims against Defendants Kershaw and Roop. Dkt. 23.

         On May 17, 2016, a Report and Recommendation was issued, recommending that the Court dismiss all claims asserted against DOC because (1) states are not considered “persons” under § 1983, and (2) based on the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as an arm of the state, the DOC was immune from suit in the federal courts. Dkt. 24. It recommended granting Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss Defendants Kershaw and Roop without prejudice. Id. It also recommended dismissal of the case without leave to amend to give Plaintiff a chance to name “unknown” medical personnel because he had already been given a chance to file an amended complaint and did not do so. Id. This Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and closed the case. Dkt. 26.

         Plaintiff appealed the decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. 28. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court's decision to dismiss the complaint, but reversed the decision to deny Plaintiff another opportunity to amend his complaint. Dkts. 33 and 34. The case was remanded “to provide Ejonga-Deogracias an opportunity to file an amended complaint that names the correct defendants.” Dkt. 33. This case was re-referred to a magistrate judge. Dkt. 39.

         On July 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. 44. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names Superintendent Donald Holbrook, retired DOC officer Bill Hamby, and “four unknown DOC staff, ” while asserting the same or similar allegations as were in the original complaint. Id. As relief, Plaintiff seeks $4, 500 per day that he spent in administrative segregation. Id.

         On August 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Notice to Court and the Attorney General of the Plaintiff [sic] Intent for Additional Defendant and Additional Claim to the Current Defendant and Amendment to Relief Sought.” Dkt. 47. Construing the pleading as a motion, the Defendants opposed the motion because Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule W.D. Wash 15 and provide a copy of the proposed second amended complaint so that they could see the changes Plaintiff wanted. Dkt. 52. In his reply, Plaintiff stated that the pleading filed on August 10, 2017 was not intended to be a motion, but only a notice. Dkt. 57. On November 2, 2017, his “Notice to Court and the Attorney General of the Plaintiff [sic] Intent for Additional Defendant and Additional Claim to the Current Defendant and Amendment to Relief Sought” was stricken as moot and Plaintiff was reminded to follow the federal and local rules if he wanted to move to amend the amended complaint. Dkt. 59.

         Meanwhile, on August 11, 2017, Defendant Holbrook filed the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 50) that is the subject of the Report and Recommendation. The relevant facts are in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 60, at 1-2) and are adopted here. The Report and Recommendation recommends the Court grant the motion to dismiss for the Plaintiff's failure to plead facts which would entitle him to relief. Dkt. 60, at 2-5.

         Plaintiff filed objections, and argues that a plaintiff in a § 1983 action no longer need show that a supervisor, like Defendant Holbrook, personally participated in the deprivation of someone's constitutional rights to be held liable. Dkt. 61. Further, he asserts that the fact that Defendant Holbrook's subordinates did not follow DOC policy demonstrated that Defendant Holbrook failed to properly train and supervise them and so is liable under § 1983. Id.

         DISCUSSION

         Report and Recommendation.

         The Report and Recommendation's recommendation, that the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 50) be granted, (Dkt. 60) should be adopted. Plaintiff's objections do not provide a basis to reject the Report and Recommendation.

         A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 “only if (1) he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) there is a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013). Under the second theory, ‚Äúsupervisory liability exists even without overt personal participation in the offensive act if supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient ...


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.