Lee v. Goff et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 32 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Donald Morris Lee, 33 Motion to Change Venue by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. For the foregoing reasons, the R&R (Dkt. No. 32) is ADOPTED and Donald Lees civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.**4 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(SG)

1

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

DONALD MORRIS LEE,

10
11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

CASE NO. C14-1992-JCC
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING ACTION

OFFICER DAN GOFF, et al.,

14

Defendant.

15
This matter comes before the Court on Donald Lee’s pro se civil rights action under 42

16

17 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Honorable James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge,
18 issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 31) advising this Court to dismiss
19 Lee’s cause of action, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Lee’s objections
20
21

to the R&R are mostly illegible and the caption identifies multiple case numbers. (Dkt. No. 32.)
This Order pertains only to case C14-1992-JCC.

22
After reviewing Lee’s objections, the parties’ briefing, and the relevant record, the Court

23
24

hereby ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES the complaint and this action, without prejudice,

25 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
26 I.

BACKGROUND

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING
ACTION
PAGE - 1

Lee, an inmate at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, filed a pro se civil rights action

1

2 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 31, 2014. (Dkt. No. 1.) In his complaint, Lee alleged that
3 Officer Dan Goff of the City of Brier Police Department arrested him under false pretenses, held
4 him in custody for several hours without allowing him access to an attorney, and obtained an
5 overly broad warrant to seize items from Lee’s house. (Dkt. No. 1–1 at 3.) Lee also named the
6

City of Brier and the City of Brier Police Department as defendants and requested declaratory

7
relief. (Id.) Judge Donohue determined that Lee’s complaint failed to state a claim under 42
8
9

U.S.C. § 1983 and that all of the alleged violations appear to be barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

10 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Dkt. No. 20.) Judge Donohue therefore declined to serve Lee’s complaint,
11 but granted him leave to amend, and advised him of the elements needed to state a civil rights
12 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.)
13
14

In the R&R, Judge Donohue recommends dismissing the case without prejudice because
Lee’s original complaint failed to adequately allege any claim for relief under § 1983, and

15
16

because Lee has failed to submit any viable amended pleading in this action. (Dkt. No. 31 at 4.)

17 In response, Lee submitted a document titled “Objection to Dismissals,” which identifies the
18 following case numbers: C14-1992-JCC and C14-1993-RSL. (Dkt. No. 33 at 1.) Lee’s document
19 is largely illegible and fails to specifically object to Judge Donohue’s R&R.
20 II.
21

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

22
The Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate
23
24

judge’s report or recommendations to which a party objects, and the Court may accept,

25 reject, or modify the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
26 § 636(b)(1).
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING
ACTION
PAGE - 2

1
2

B.

§ 1983 Failure to State a Claim

The Court will dismiss a complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim,

3 raises frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
4 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In order to state a claim for relief
5 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he suffered a violation of rights
6
protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, and (2) the violation was
7
proximately caused by a person acting under color of state law. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947
8
F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). To satisfy the first prong in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must
9
10 identify specific constitutional rights allegedly infringed. Allbright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266,
11 271 (1994). To establish the second prong, a plaintiff must allege facts showing how
12 individually named defendants caused, or personally participated in causing, the harm
13

alleged in the complaint. See Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1981).

14
The R&R addressed Lee’s failure to cure the deficiencies in his original complaint.
15
16

(Dkt. No. 31 at 4.) In his mostly illegible objections, Lee fails to make any specific

17 objections to Judge Donohue’s findings or state that he intends to amend his original
18 complaint to state a cognizable claim. Most importantly, he fails to identify any
19 constitutional rights he believes were violated by Officer Goff. Thus, Lee has failed to make
20 an effective objection to the R&R.
21

Additionally, Lee appears to argue his claims are not barred by Heck. (Dkt. No. 32 at

22
1.) In order to recover damages by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
23
24

sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been

25 reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
26 authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING
ACTION
PAGE - 3

1

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87. Lee

2 contends that he listed citations and case precedent which allow him to bring his cause of
3 action. (Dkt. No. 32 at 2.) However, the R&R rightly notes that Lee’s original complaint
4 failed to state a claim under § 1983 and the potential Heck bar was not the only deficiency.
5 (Dkt. No. 31 at 4.) There is, therefore, no need to address Lee’s arguments about this issue.
6

Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Donohue’s recommendation to dismiss Lee’s

7
civil rights action without prejudice because the R&R appropriately finds Lee’s claims are
8
9

not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

10

C.

Venue

11

Also before the Court is Lee’s Motion to Change Venue. (Dkt. No. 33.) Because the

12 Court here adopts the R&R and dismisses Lee’s case without prejudice, the motion (Dkt. No. 33)
13

is DENIED as moot.

14

III.

CONCLUSION

15
16

For the foregoing reasons, the R&R (Dkt. No. 32) is ADOPTED and Donald Lee’s civil

17 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
18

DATED this 17th day of August 2015.

19
20
21

A

22
23
24

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING
ACTION
PAGE - 4