Opinion
No. 11-35662 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05171-RBL
08-13-2012
TODD FOSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON; ELDON VAIL; JOSEPH LEHMAN, Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Seattle, Washington
Before: BLACK, GRABER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Susan H. Black, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
--------
Plaintiff Todd Foster appeals the district court's order granting judgment on the pleadings to Defendants State of Washington, Eldon Vail, and Joseph Lehman. Reviewing de novo, Kotrous v. Goss-Jewett Co. of N. Cal., 523 F.3d 924, 929 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.
On appeal, Plaintiff does not challenge the district court's finding that "Plaintiff was not eligible for early release because he did not provide a valid release address pursuant to [Revised Code of Washington section] 9.94A.729(5)(b)." That holding conclusively undermines Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff's failure to submit a valid application—and not any alleged miscalculation by Defendants of Plaintiff's early release date—was the cause of Defendants' alleged failure to provide Plaintiff with release to community custody. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008) ("In a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must . . . demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was the actionable cause of the claimed injury."); Bernethy v. Walt Failor's, Inc., 653 P.2d 280, 282 (Wash. 1982) (holding that, to establish a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must establish, among other things, that "there was a sufficiently close, actual, causal connection between defendant's conduct and the actual damage suffered by plaintiff" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Similarly, Plaintiff's failure to submit a valid application meant that no state-law duty to release him ever arose. See Stalter v. State, 86 P.3d 1159, 1162 (Wash. 2004) ("It is well established that a jail is liable for false imprisonment if it holds an individual for an unreasonable time after it is under a duty to release the individual." (emphasis added)).
AFFIRMED.