Opinion
Case No. C02-5608FDB
January 3, 2003
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This § 1983 Civil Rights matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR1, MJR3, and MJR4. For the reasons set forth below, the Court should dismiss plaintiff's complaint and causes of action.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Terry Warner, is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Larch Corrections Center in Yacolt, Washington. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two defendants: Joseph Lehman, the Secretary of the Washington State Department of Corrections, and Patricia Gorman, the prison's Superintendent.
According to his complaint, Mr. Warner was convicted and sentenced in December 1992, and with approximately 380 days of earned early release credits, plaintiff alleges he was entitled to be released from prison in February 2000. Plaintiff alleges he has been wrongfully denied his earned release credits and his release date has been extended to the maximum date in March 2003. According to plaintiffs supporting brief attached to his complaint, it appears Mr. Warner's early release is contingent on an approved or acceptable release address. Mr. Warner's administrative grievance indicates he would like the prison officials to approve any address he submits.
On December 9, 2002, the court reviewed plaintiff's complaint and issued an order to show cause why the matter should not be summarily dismissed. See Dkt. #6. The court noted two significant deficiencies with plaintiff's complaint. First, the complaint appeared to raise issues which are more appropriate in a writ of habeas corpus. Second, the court noted the complaint failed to show how either of the two named defendants personally participated in the alleged deprivation(s). Plaintiff was directed to either amend the complaint to cure these deficience or show cause why the complaint should not be summarily dismissed. Plaintiff responded with a memorandum attempting to show cause why the matter should proceed.
After carefully reviewing the complaint, plaintiff's memorandum in response to the court's show cause order, and the balance of the record, the Court should dismiss plaintiff's frivolous complaint.
DISCUSSION
A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact.Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984). When a complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face, the court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 575 (9th Cir. 1987) ( citing Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984)).
Here, Mr. Warner has filed a civil complaint pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and monetary relief. Specifically, Mr. Warner alleges defendants arbitrarily denied him earned early release credits. In Edwards v. Balisok, 117 S.Ct. 1594 (1997), and Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994), the Supreme Court barred § 1983 actions implicating the fact or duration of a prisoner's confinement Under these cases, courts will apply the tort rule of "favorable termination" to a § 1983 claim which relates to the validity of state confinement. Under this rule, a civil claim which would necessarily undermine a criminal judgment will not accrue unless the plaintiff first obtains a "favorable termination" of the underlying criminal proceeding.Heck, 114 S.Ct. at 2371-72. This rule applies with equal force whenever success on a prisoner's § 1983 complaint would necessarily invalidate the length of a prisoner's confinement as based upon good-time credits. In such cases, the prisoner's claim will not be cognizable under § 1983 and is subject to dismissal until such time as the prisoner receives a "favorable termination" in a state or federal habeas corpus action.Edwards, 117 S.Ct. at 15 88-89.
Plaintiff's claims in this case are barred by Edwards and Heck. Plaintiff admits that he lost good conduct time or the ability to be released in February 2002, because the address he submitted to prison officials was not acceptable. Plaintiff argues he was denied due process when the prison officials' made this decision. If the court agrees to entertain plaintiff's claims, plaintiff's prison sentence would be affected by any favorable finding made by the court. Such claims must be raised in a writ of habeas corpus and not cognizable under § 1983. The court should dismiss the matter on this basis.
The court further finds plaintiff has failed to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to show how either of the two defendants named in the complaint personally participated in the alleged deprivation. In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege facts showing how individually named defendants caused or personally participated in causing the harm alleged in the complaint. Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). A defendant cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely on the basis of supervisory responsibility or position. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 n. 58 (1978). A theory of respondeat superior is not sufficient to state a § 1983 claim. Padway v. Palches, 665 E.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1982).
Plaintiff's complaint and memorandum in support of the complaint do not show or explain how Joseph Lehman or Patricia Gorman participated in the alleged deprivation of plaintiff's earned early release credits or the disapproval of Mr. Warner's release address. Mr. Lehman and Ms. Gorman appear to be named in the complaint based solely on their role as supervisors, overseeing the prison operations. Mr. Warner does not name any individuals who personally participated in the review of Mr. Warner's release address or who personally made or recommended the decision to reject Mr. Warner's release address, which effectively denied him an earned early release date.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court should grant dismiss the complaint and plaintiff's causes of action. A proposed order accompanies this report and recommendation.