United States District Court, E.D. Washington
THEODORE F. GRAVES, Plaintiff,
BERNARD WARNER, et al., Defendants.
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
O. RICE Chief United States District Judge.
THE COURT is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF
No. 19. This matter was submitted for consideration without
oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files
herein, and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed
below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
19) is GRANTED.
26, 2016, Plaintiff Theodore F. Graves, a Colorado inmate
housed by the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC),
filed pro se a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim. ECF No.
7. Plaintiff alleges that Washington prison officials have
violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment by levying statutory deductions for the Cost of
Incarceration (COI) and for Crime Victim Compensation (CVC)
without prior notice and a meaningful hearing. Id.
at 3-4, 8. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants violated
the Contract Clause and Compact Clause by impairing the
Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC) and the Contract between
the states of Washington and Colorado (Contract).
Id. at 3-4.
September 12, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment, including the required Rand
notice. ECF Nos. 19; 21. Defendants seek dismissal
of all Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. ECF No. 19 at
1. Plaintiff has not timely responded to Defendants'
pro se litigant must file a response 30 days after
the mailing of a dispositive motion. Local Rule 7.1(b)(2)(A).
Here, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment. Defendants properly filed a
Rand notice stating that “if you do not file
your response opposing either of these motions within the
mandated timeframe, your failure to file a response may be
considered by the court as an admission that the motion has
merit.” ECF No. 21 at 2 (citing Local Rule 7.1(b)(2)).
The Court will now consider the merits of Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Summary Judgment Standard
judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). For
purposes of summary judgment, a fact is
“material” if it might affect the outcome of the
suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A material fact is
“genuine” where the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party.
Id. The moving party bears the initial burden of
showing the absence of any genuine issues of material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to identify
specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material
fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.
ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court views the
facts, as well as all rational inferences therefrom, in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). The court must only
consider admissible evidence. Orr v. Bank of America, NT
& SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002). There must be
evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the
plaintiff and a “mere existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be
insufficient.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
42 U.S.C. § 1983, a cause of action may be maintained
“against any person acting under color of law who
deprives another ‘of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, ' of the
United States.” S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa
Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 887 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 42
U.S.C. § 1983). The rights guaranteed by § 1983 are
“liberally and beneficially construed.”
Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 443 (1991) (quoting
Monell v. N.Y. City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436
U.S. 658, 684 (1978)). “A person deprives another
‘of a constitutional right, within the meaning of
section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in
another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act
which he is legally required to do that causes the
deprivation of which the plaintiff complains.'”
Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988)
(brackets and emphasis omitted) (quoting Johnson v.
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)).
Due Process Violation
assert that Plaintiff's Complaint does not demonstrate
procedural or substantive due ...