Darrel Lorne Harris v. Washington State Department of Corrections, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05665
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 DARREL LORNE HARRIS, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05665-KKE-BAT 10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS 11 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON STATE OF CORRECTIONS, et al., DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 12 D f d t

13 Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Defendants Washington State 14 Department of Corrections (DOC); Superintendent of Stafford Creek Corrections Center (SCCC) 15 Karen Arnold, and Stafford Creek Medical Provider A. Dougherty, alleging they violated his 16 Eighth Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical services. Dkt. 5 17 On August 25, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the DOC as a defendant. Dkt. 18 8. Under the Court’s local rules, any opposition to the motion was due no later than September 19 16, 2025. See Local Rule LCR 7(d)(3). The Court notes Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the 20 complaint which does not discuss Defendant’s dismissal motion but simply states “Plaintiff 21 moves the court to dismiss defendants motion to dismiss and procede this complaint.” Dkt. 12 at 22 3. 23 1 Defendants correctly argue the DOC is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment 2 to the United States Constitution. Washington. A state agency and state officials acting in their 3 official capacity are not persons under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 4 71 (1989); Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining governmental

5 entities that are considered “arms of the State” for Eleventh Amendment purposes are not 6 “persons” under § 1983); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, 7 Plaintiff has no cause of action against a state agency such as the DOC under § 1983. 8 Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 951. The State of Washington has not waived its Eleventh Amendment 9 immunity. See Taylor v. Washington Department of Corrections, 2024 WL 4262806 at * 1 (9th 10 Cir. Sept. 23, 2024) citing Yakima Indian Nation v. State Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d. 1241, 1245 11 (9th Cir. 1999); Whiteside v. State of Wash., 534 F. Supp. 774, 778 (E.D. Wash. 1982); RCW 12 4.92.010. 13 As the DOC is immune from Plaintiff’s § 1983 action, the Court recommends: 14 1. The DOC be dismissed with prejudice as a Defendant in this action.

15 2. Because this report recommends the dismissal of only one Defendant, the DOC, 16 the matter shall remain referred to the undersigned magistrate judge to address Plaintiff’s claims 17 against the remaining Defendants. 18 OBJECTIONS AND APPEAL 19 This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Therefore, Plaintiff should 20 not file a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit until the assigned District 21 Judge enters a judgment in the case. 22 Objections, however, may be filed and served upon all parties no later than October 28, 23 2025. The Clerk shall note the matter for October 29, 2025, as ready for the District Judge’s 1 consideration if no objection is filed. If objections are filed, any response is due within 14 days 2 after being served with the objections. A party filing an objection must note the matter for the 3 Court’s consideration 14 days from the date the objection is filed and served. The matter will 4 then be ready for the Court’s consideration on the date the response is due.

5 The failure to timely object may affect the right to appeal. 6 DATED this 14th day of October, 2025. 7 A 8 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23