Opinion
3:23-cv-05838-BJR-TLF
07-31-2024
JOHN EDWARD BETTYS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Barbara J. Rothstein United States District Judge
The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Judge Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge, objections to the report and recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:
(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;
(2) Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 33) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
I. Claim One: ADA/RA Claims
a. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to plaintiff's Title III ADA claims, these claims are dismissed with prejudice.
b. Plaintiff's individual capacity claims brought under Title II of the ADA/RA against the non-entity individual defendants (McFarlane, Candella, Yockey, Guien, Havens, Anderson, Lowe) are also dismissed with prejudice.
c. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiff's Title II ADA/RA claims and plaintiff's request for money damages under Title II of the ADA/RA brought against the defendants in their official capacity and against the entity defendants (State of Washington and DSHS). Those claims survive.
d. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as moot to the extent it seeks to dismiss claims related to plaintiff's placement in Program Area One in 2019.
II. Claim Two: Fourteenth Amendment “Overadministration” Claim
a. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
b. Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims challenging the SCC restrictions on smoking and purchasing video game consoles are dismissed with prejudice.
c. Plaintiff's remaining Fourteenth Amendment claims challenging his medical care and challenging limitations on the unlimited ability to make purchases, ability to have a fundraiser, ability to seek exceptions to vendor policy, ability to use an “inner library loan system”, ability to provide unlimited amount of funds in a single transaction, ability to sell crafts, ability to operate a business, ability to shop at Amazon and Walmart, and ability to open an outside bank account are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.
III. Claim Three: FLSA and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection -Minimum Wage
a. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
b. Plaintiff's FLSA claims are dismissed with prejudice.
c. Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims related to wages are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.
IV. Claim Four: First Amendment - Media Policy
a. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.
V. Claim Five: First Amendment Retaliation
a. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.
VI. Claim Six: Fourteenth Amendment Denial of Therapeutic Care
a. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.
VII. Claims Against Specific Defendants:
a. Defendants' motion to dismiss the State of Washington is denied. The State of Washington remains as a defendant with respect to plaintiff's ADA/RA claims only.
b. The Court has already ordered dismissal of the claims alleged against defendants Meneses (Claim Two) and Whitehouse (Claim Three), as well as the individual capacity claims against
defendant Anderson (Claim One). Accordingly, the Court need not address defendants' additional arguments for dismissal of these claims. Because defendants make no specific argument for dismissal of the remaining official capacity claims against defendant Anderson (apart from their Eleventh Amendment argument), the Court declines to address that issue and plaintiff's official capacity claims against defendant Anderson alleged in Claim One remain.
c. Defendants' motion to dismiss “SCC Ombudsman” as a defendant is denied as moot or unnecessary.
d. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's official capacity claims brought under the ADA/RA is denied.
e. The Court has already dismissed all of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims above. However, to the extent that plaintiff's § 1983 claims seek damages or other retrospective relief against state officials acting in their official capacities, these claims are also subject to dismissal as barred by the Eleventh Amendment -defendants' motion to dismiss those claims is granted on that basis as well. To the extent plaintiff's § 1983 claims seek prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against state officials acting in their official capacities, his claims are not subject to dismissal as barred by the Eleventh Amendment -- to the extent
defendants seek dismissal of these claims on this basis as well, the motion is denied.
VIII. Plaintiff is allowed to file a proposed amended complaint to cure, if possible, issues that have been identified by the Court regarding deficiencies in the claims for which he has been granted leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed by this deadline - plaintiff must file the proposed amended complaint, in compliance with Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule (LCR) 15, within 30 days of the date of this order.
a. Within the amended complaint, plaintiff must write a short, plain statement telling the Court: (1) the constitutional or statutory right plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the person who violated the right; (3) exactly what the individual did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of the individual is connected to the violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury plaintiff suffered because of the individual's conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Each claim for relief must be simple, concise, and direct.
b. Plaintiff shall present the proposed amended complaint on the form provided by the Court. The amended complaint must be legibly rewritten or retyped in its entirety and contain the same case number. It may not incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference. In accordance with LCR 15, plaintiff shall
indicate by underlining or highlighting in the proposed amended complaint any text or allegation that is new and was not alleged in the original complaint.
c. The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for the original complaint, and not as a supplement. Any fact or cause of action alleged in the original complaint that is not alleged in the amended complaint is waived. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).
IX. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff the appropriate forms for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and for service, a copy of this Order and the Pro Se Information Sheet.
X. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of his order to the parties and to Judge Fricke.
XI. The matter is re-referred to Judge Fricke for further proceedings.