Watson v. Washington Department of Corrections et al

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. The R&R is ADOOPTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Watson's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED for purposes of appeal. The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Deshan Watson, Prisoner ID: 851054)(SP)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
DESHAN WATSON,

CASE NO. C17-5968 BHS

7
Plaintiff,
8
9
10

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
13
of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 27, and
14
Plaintiff Deshan Watson’s (“Watson”) objections to the R&R, Dkt. 28.
15
On November 15, 2018, Judge Fricke issued the R&R recommending that the
16
Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all of Watson’s claims or
17
grant summary judgment on the federal claims and decline to exercise supplemental
18
jurisdiction over the state law claims. Dkt. 27. On November 29, 2018, Watson filed
19
objections. Dkt. 28. On December 12, 2018, Defendants responded. Dkt. 30.
20
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
21
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or
22
23
24

ORDER - 1

1

modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

2

magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

3

In this case, Watson objects to Judge Fricke’s recommendation that (1) he failed to

4

establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding Defendants Scott Light (“Light”) and

5

Sara Smith’s (“Smith”) deliberate indifference to Watson’s serious medical need and (2)

6

the Court should dismiss Watson’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and

7

Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) claims. Dkt. 28. First, the Court agrees with Judge Fricke that

8

Watson has failed to submit sufficient evidence that Light or Smith acted with deliberate

9

indifference. All of the medical tests in the record support the conclusion that Watson is

10

not gluten intolerant. Even the records from Watson’s hospitalization indicate that the

11

most likely cause was complications from a kidney stone and not gluten intolerance. In

12

light of these facts, Watson has failed to establish a question of fact that either Light or

13

Smith were indifferent to the serious medical condition of gluten intolerance. Therefore,

14

the Court adopts the R&R on this issue.

15

Second, Watson argues that Defendant Washington State Department of

16

Corrections (“DOC”) can be held liable under the ADA and the RA. Dkt. 28 at 4. The

17

Court agrees and finds that the R&R could be misread on this issue. Judge Fricke

18

recommends dismissing Watson’s § 1983 claim against the DOC because the DOC is not

19

a person subject to suit under § 1983. Dkt. 27 at 7. Regarding Watson’s ADA and RA

20

claims, Judge Fricke concludes that “[a]s discussed above, DOC should be dismissed as a

21

defendant.” Dkt. 27 at 14. While this could be construed as dismissing DOC because it

22

is not subject to suit under either act, it can also be construed as dismissing Watson’s

23
24

ORDER - 2

1

claims because he has failed to show deliberate indifference under both acts. See Updike

2

v. Multnomah Cty., 870 F.3d 939, 951 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A public entity may be liable for

3

damages under Title II of the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ‘if it intentionally

4

or with deliberate indifference fails to provide meaningful access or reasonable

5

accommodation to disabled persons.’”) (quoting Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922,

6

937–38 (9th Cir. 2008)). Regarding the latter, Watson has failed to establish deliberate

7

indifference as to any DOC employee and thus failed to establish DOC’s liability. The

8

Court grants Defendants’ motion on this issue and for this reason.

9

Finally, regarding supplemental jurisdiction, the Court will maintain supplemental

10

jurisdiction to address and adopt the R&R on the merits of Watson’s state law claims

11

because he fails to object to the R&R on these issues. Therefore, the Court having

12

considered the R&R, Watson’s objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find

13

and order as follows:

14

(1)

The R&R is ADOPTED;

15

(2)

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;

16

(3)

Watson’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED for purposes of appeal;

17

and

18

(4)

19

Dated this 31st day of January, 2019.

A

20
21

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

22
23
24

The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

ORDER - 3