Carroll v. Stewart et al
Filing
100
ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. The motion to extend (Dkt. 98) is GRANTED; The Court's previous order (Dkt. 96) is VACATED; (3) The R&R (Dkt. 94) is ADOPTED; and Defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 80) is GRANTED. (MET) cc: plaintiff
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
6
7
8
MICHAEL CARROLL,
Plaintiff,
9
10
v.
CASE NO. C15-5170 BHS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
KELSEY STEWART, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
14
of the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 94), and
15
Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (Dkt. 97). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for
16
an extension to file his objections. Dkt. 98.
17
On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and
18
a proposed civil rights complaint. Dkt. 1. On March 25, 2015, the Court directed service
19
of plaintiff’s complaint. Dkts. 5, 6. On August 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
20
complaint. Dkt. 31. On September 14, 2015, Defendant Kelsey filed an answer to
21
Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Dkt. 33. On November 20, 2015, Defendants Chamberlin,
22
Theissen, and Westberg answered Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Dkt. 44. On January
ORDER - 1
1
26, 2016, Defendants Jackson and Mitchell answered Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Dkt.
2
51.
3
On October 20, 2016, Defendants moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 80. On
4
November 30, 2016, Plaintiff responded. Dkt. 84. On December 7, 2016, Defendants
5
replied. Dkt. 85. On December 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a surreply. Dkt. 86. On January 4,
6
2017, Judge Creatura requested additional briefing. Dkt. 87. On January 20, 2017,
7
Defendants filed a supplemental brief. Dkt. 90. On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
8
supplemental brief. Dkt. 90. On February 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint
9
counsel. Dkt. 91. On March 3, 2017, Defendants responded. Dkt. 93.
10
On March 9, 2017, Judge Creatura issued the R&R recommending that the motion
11
for summary judgment be granted. Dkt. 94. On March 22, 2017, Judge Creatura denied
12
the motion to appoint counsel and noted the R&R on the Court’s calendar for April 14,
13
2017. Dkt. 95. On April 18, 2017, having received no objections, the Court entered an
14
order adopting the R&R. Dkt. 96. Later that same day, Plaintiff filed his objections to the
15
R&R with an accompanying motion to extend the deadline for his objections. Dkts. 97,
16
98.
17
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
18
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or
19
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
20
magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
21
First, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s motion for an extension. Plaintiff has
22
described good cause for his failure to timely file objections. Plaintiff’s objections were
ORDER - 2
1
due by April 14, 2018. See Dkt. 95. On April 12, 2017, the prison in which Plaintiff is
2
incarcerated went on “lockdown” and as a result, April 18 was the first day that Plaintiff
3
could file his objections. Dkt. 98 at 2, 4. Having found good cause for Plaintiff’s delay,
4
the motion to extend the deadline for objections is granted and the Court vacates its
5
previous order adopting the R&R without consideration of Plaintiff’s objections.
6
In his objections Plaintiff argues that Judge Creatura wrongfully declined to
7
consider his due process claims based on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-87
8
(1994). Dkt. 97 at 5 (citing Dkt. 94 at 13 n.3). However, this statement does not
9
accurately reflect the R&R. Rather, Judge Creatura did address Plaintiff’s due process
10
claims, stating that his R&R would not address the seemingly apparent bar under Heck
11
because the Defendants failed to raise such an argument. Dkt. 94 at 13 n.3.
12
Other than this, Plaintiff does not object to any particular aspect of the R&R.
13
Instead, Plaintiff simply reargues his due process claims in the same way that they were
14
presented to Judge Creatura. See Dkt. 84 at 1–42; Dkt. 97. The Court agrees with Judge
15
Creatura’s analysis. The majority of Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. To the extent they
16
are not, Plaintiff either (1) offers only conclusory statements devoid of specific facts that
17
would entitle him to relief against particular named defendants, see Dkt. 94 at 14–15, or
18
(2) “the evidence in the record shows that [his] arrest, detention, and tolling of his
19
supervision were consistent with state and federal law and did not violate his due process
20
rights.” Dkt. 94 at 18.
21
22
The Court having considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the remaining
record, does hereby find and order as follows:
ORDER - 3
1
(1)
The motion to extend (Dkt. 98) is GRANTED;
2
(2)
The Court’s previous order (Dkt. 96) is VACATED;
3
(3)
The R&R (Dkt. 94) is ADOPTED; and
4
(4)
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 80) is GRANTED; and
5
(5)
The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendants and close this case.
6
Dated this 3rd day of May, 2017.
7
8
A
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER - 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?