Garnica v. State of Washington et al

Filing 30

ORDER adopting the R&R 27 ; Garnica's federal law claims are DISMISSED; and Garnica's state law claims are REMANDED to Thurston County Superior Court. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

MARCO GARNICA,
Plaintiff,

9

CASE NO. C14-5546 BHS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
10
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
of the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 27), and
Plaintiff Marco Garnica’s (“Garnica”) objections to the R&R (Dkt. 28).

16
17
18
19
20
21

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 4, 2011, Garnica slipped and fell while cleaning a shower at the Clallam
Bay Corrections Center. Dkt. 1, Ex. 2 (“Comp.”) ¶¶ 1.1, 4.2. On May 6, 2014, Garnica
filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Defendants State of Washington, the
Washington State Department of Corrections, Bernard Warner, Ronald Fraker, and D.
Kuth (collectively “Defendants”) in Thurston County Superior Court. Id. Garnica

22

ORDER - 1

1 alleges that Defendants (1) violated his federal constitutional rights under the Eighth and
2 Fourteenth Amendments, (2) acted negligently under Washington state law, and (3)
3 violated his state constitutional rights under Article I, Sections 3 and 14 of the
4 Washington State Constitution. Id. ¶¶ 5.1–6.3. On July 9, 2014, Defendants removed the
5 case to this Court. Dkt. 1.
6

On December 16, 2014, Defendants moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 15. On

7 April 17, 2015, Judge Creatura issued the R&R recommending that the Court dismiss
8 Garnica’s federal law claims and remand his state law claims. Dkt. 27. On May 7, 2015,
9 Garnica filed objections. Dkt. 28. On May 21, 2015, Defendants responded. Dkt. 29.
10
11

II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs objections to a magistrate judge’s

12 recommended disposition. Rule 72(b) provides as follows:
13
14

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge
may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

15
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
16
Garnica objects to Judge Creatura’s recommended disposition regarding his
17
federal claims. Dkt. 28. First, Garnica contends that Judge Creatura erroneously
18
determined that Secretary of the Department of Corrections Bernard Warner (“Secretary
19
Warner”) and Superintendent of the Clallam Bay Corrections Center Ronald Fraker
20
(“Superintendent Fraker”) cannot be held liable under section 1983. Id. at 4–5. As Judge
21
Creatura explained, a defendant cannot be held liable under section 1983 solely on the
22

ORDER - 2

1 basis of a supervisory responsibility or position. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436
2 U.S. 658, 694 n.58 (1978). Although Secretary Warner and Superintendent Fraker may
3 have been responsible for the overall operation of the prison, Garnica has not
4 demonstrated that Secretary Warner or Superintendent Fraker were personally involved
5 in the maintenance of the shower floors. Accordingly, these defendants cannot be held
6 liable under section 1983.
7

Garnica also contends that Judge Creatura erroneously concluded that Correctional

8 Officer D. Kuth (“Officer Kuth”) was entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 28 at 3, 7–8.
9 The Court disagrees. Judge Creatura thoroughly and properly discussed why Officer
10 Kuth is entitled to qualified immunity. See Dkt. 27 at 10–15. Specifically, Garnica failed
11 to present evidence showing that the shower conditions rose to the level of a
12 constitutional violation. Garnica also did not present evidence showing that Officer Kuth
13 knew that the shower floors posed an excessive risk to inmate safety or that he was
14 deliberately indifferent to this condition. Finally, Garnica failed to show that the law
15 regarding the maintenance of shower floors was clearly established at the time of the
16 incident.
17
18

III. ORDER
Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Garnica’s objections, and the

19 remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:
20

(1)

The R&R is ADOPTED;

21

(2)

Garnica’s federal law claims are DISMISSED; and

22

ORDER - 3

1

(3)

Garnica’s state law claims are REMANDED to Thurston County Superior

2 Court.
3

Dated this 15th day of June, 2015.

A

4
5

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4