Carter v. Warner et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Benjamin H Settle re 23 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Lonnie Ray Carter. 24 Motion for Permanent Injunction filed by Lonnie Ray Carter and 22 Motion to Compel filed by Lonnie Ray Carter are DENIED as moot. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

LONNIE RAY CARTER,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. C11-5617BHS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

BERNIE WARNER, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

15

the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 19) and Plaintiff

16

Lonnie Ray Carter’s (“Carter”) objections to the R&R (Dkt. 23), motion to compel (Dkt.

17

22), and motion for permanent injunction (Dkt. 24).

18

On August 12, 2011, Carter filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a

19

proposed civil rights complaint. Dkt. 1. On August 26, 2011, Judge Creatura issued a show

20

cause order requiring Carter to show why his proposed complaint should not be summarily

21

dismissed for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 5. On January 25, 2012, Carter filed a First

22

Amended Complaint. Dkt. 16. On January 31, 2012, Judge Creatura granted Carter’s

23

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 17) and accepted Carter’s original complaint that

24

was received by the Court on August 12, 2011 (Dkt. 18). On February 1, 2012, Carter filed

25

pages 21 to 46 of his amended complaint. Dkt. 20. On February 2, 2012, Judge Creatura

26

issued the R&R recommending that Carter’s amended complaint (Dkt. 16) be dismissed for

27

failure to state a claim. Dkt. 19.

28

ORDER – 1

1

On February 27, 2012, Carter filed objections to the R&R and argued that the R&R

2

does not address the causes of action that were contained in the second part of Carter’s

3

amended complaint. Dkt. 23. Carter asserts that, due to the length of his amended

4

complaint, prison officials required him to mail it in two separate envelopes. Id. The second

5

envelope contained the portion of Carter’s complaint that contained his second and third

6

causes of action. Id. Although the Court had received the second part of Carter’s amended

7

complaint, it is unclear whether the second part has been considered. Id.

8
9

Upon review of Carter’s entire amended complaint, the Court concludes that Carter’s
amended complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Carter requests a

10

declaratory injunction that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

11

Carter, however, only asserts that defendants failed to follow RCW 72.09.270 when they

12

released him from confinement on August 10, 2008. In other words, Carter fails to explain

13

how his federal constitutional rights were violated by defendants’ alleged acts of failing to

14

follow a state law. Therefore, the Court dismisses Carter’s amended complaint for failure to

15

assert a cognizable legal theory.

16

(1)

sponte and standards for a cognizable claim;

17
18

The R&R is ADOPTED as to the Court’s authority to dismiss a complaint sua

(2)

The Court DISMISSES Carter’s amended complaint based on a review of
both parts of the amended complaint (Dkts. 16 & 20);

19
20

(3)

Carter’s other motions (Dkts. 22 & 24) are DENIED as moot; and

21

(4)

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

22

DATED this 27th day of March, 2012.

23
24

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

A

ORDER – 2