Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 RENEE BISHOP-MCKEAN, CASE NO. C20-5416JLR-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND v. GRANTING MOTION TO 12 AMEND WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT 13 OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court are Plaintiff Renee Bishop-McKean’s objections to Magistrate 16 Judge David W. Christel’s Report and Recommendation (R&R (Dkt. # 36)), in which she 17 also requests leave to amend her complaint (Obj. & MTA (Dkt. # 38)). Specifically, Ms. 18 Bishop-McKean wishes to remove Defendants Department of Corrections (“DOC”), the 19 Washington Corrections Center for Women (“WCCW”) and Megan Dunlap. (Id. at 1.) 20 Defendants oppose further amendment, largely because Ms. Bishop-McKean did not 21 attach a proposed amended pleading to indicate the changes. (Resp. (Dkt. # 41).) 22 1 First, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Christel’s Report and Recommendations, 2 which recommends dismissal of DOC and WCCW with prejudice as “state agencies 3 [that] cannot be sued under § 1983.” (R&R at 3-4 (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State

4 Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 71 (1989)).) Ms. Bishop-McKean simply states that she “do[es] 5 hereby object to the R & R” but gives no further reasoning as to why DOC or WCCW is 6 a “person” for purposes of a § 1983 civil rights action. (See Obj. & MTA at 2.) The 7 court concludes that Ms. Bishop-McKean’s objections lack merit and that Magistrate 8 Judge Christel thoroughly addressed the arguments in his Report and Recommendation.

9 (See generally R&R.) Furthermore, the court has independently reviewed the issue and 10 reaches the same conclusion as Magistrate Judge Christel for the same reasons. 11 Second, as to the motion to amend, the court observes that although Ms. 12 Bishop-McKean did not attached a proposed amended pleading, she makes clear in her 13 motion that she seeks to remove DOC, WCCW and Ms. Dunlap as defendants. (Obj. &

14 MTA at 1.) Indeed, Ms. Bishop-McKean states that “unbeknownst to [her],” DOC and 15 WCCW were added as defendants and “should not have been.” (Id.) She further 16 elaborates that she has made several unsuccessful attempts to locate Ms. Dunlap. (Id. at 17 2.) Based on these representations, the court grants Ms. Bishop-McKean leave to amend 18 for the limited purpose of removing DOC, WCCW and Ms. Dunlap as defendants. The

19 court cautions Ms. Bishop-McKean that this limited grant does not allow for any other 20 changes to the complaint. 21 Accordingly, the court OVERRULES Ms. Bishop-McKean’s objections (Dkt. 22 # 38) and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 36). Defendants DOC and 1 WCCW are DISMISSED with prejudice. The court further GRANTS Ms. 2 Bishop-McKean leave to amend for the limited purpose of removing DOC, WCCW and 3 Ms. Dunlap as defendants. Ms. Bishop-McKean is DIRECTED to file her amended

4 complaint within 14 days. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to 5 Ms. Bishop-McKean, all counsel and Magistrate Judge Christel. 6 Dated this 15th day of March, 2021. 7 A 8 9 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22