Hutton v. Raymond et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 of Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell this case is dismissed without prejudice to refiling...plaintiff's motions seeking transfer to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections 11 , 12 , 13 and 16 are stricken as moot. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 08/15/2017. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TERRY LEE HUTTON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONNA RAYMOND, et al..,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-17-0509-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Terry Lee Hutton Jr. filed a pro se complaint asserting claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Donna Raymond and Ande Howry. He alleges that these
defendants are interstate compact coordinators for the Missouri Department of Corrections
and Oklahoma Department of Corrections, respectively. He further alleges that he was
transferred to a private corrections facility in violation of the Interstate Corrections
Compact (the ICC) between Oklahoma and Missouri, that his transfer was in retaliation for
filing a sexual harassment complaint, and that when he appealed to defendants to reverse
his transfer, they failed to investigate or grant his request in violation of his due process
rights.
This matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for initial
proceedings, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Mitchell issued a Report and
Recommendation (the Report), which concluded that alleged violations of the ICC are not
violations of federal law, and are not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Report
recommends the case be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim for which
relief can be granted by this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A.

Plaintiff has objected, stating his claims are not based solely on the ICC but also on
the Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq. But he has not alleged how
either defendant was involved in the claimed retaliation for reporting sexual harassment or
that they had a duty to protect him from such retaliation. The Report properly concludes
that the complaint fails to state a claim against either defendant. Accordingly, the Report
[Doc. No. 14] is ADOPTED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling.
Plaintiff’s motions seeking transfer to the custody of the Missouri Department of
Corrections [Doc. Nos. 11–13, 16] are STRICKEN as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 15th day of August, 2017.

2