Schefflin v. Jackson

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 7, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05364
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 PHILIP IRA SCHEFFLIN, NO. 3:22-cv-5364 BJR-TLF Plaintiff, 8 ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE v. R&R; AND DISMISSING 9 COMPLAINT JOSEPH JAMES ANTHONY JACKSON, 10 Defendant. 11 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of U.S. 12 Magistrate Judge Teresa L. Fricke, to whom this matter has been assigned. Dkt. No. 8. As 13 outlined in the R&R, Plaintiff Philip Ira Schefflin is currently incarcerated at the Coyote Ridge 14 Corrections Center. R&R at 1. Schefflin attempts to state due process and other claims against 15 Joseph Jackson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Thurston County, Washington. See Compl., 16 Dkt. No. 4. Schefflin alleges that Jackson failed to serve on him a copy of the State’s response to 17 what was being construed as Schefflin’s Personal Restraint Petition (“PRP”), then proceeding in 18 the Washington Court of Appeals. Id. That response was apparently due on August 9, 2019, and 19 was filed with the Court of Appeals on August 7, 2019. Compl., Ex. C. 20 Schefflin filed in the Court of Appeals a “Motion for Non-Response and Non-Service,” 21 claiming no answer had been filed and seeking a ruling on the PRP in his favor. On September 22 20, 2019, in response to that motion, the Court of Appeals advised Schefflin that the response had 23 24 ORDER 25 2 to reply, to October 25, 2019. Id. The Court of Appeals later extended the deadline to file a reply 3 again, to December 20, 2019. Compl., Ex. F. 4 Although details are missing from the record before this Court, it is apparent that 5 ultimately the Court of Appeals determined that Schefflin’s PRP was untimely. The Washington 6 Supreme Court rejected Schefflin’s subsequent motion for discretionary review. Compl., Ex. K. 7 In a written ruling, the deputy commissioner noted that Schefflin had not challenged the substance 8 of the Court of Appeals’ ruling, but only the purported failure of Deputy Prosecutor Jackson to 9 serve Schefflin with the State’s response to his PRP. Id. As the deputy commissioner observed, 10 however, the Court of Appeals had afforded Schefflin time to reply to the State’s response, by 11 both serving Schefflin a copy of that response, and extending the deadline for him to reply, as

12 recounted above. The deputy commissioner concluded that Schefflin therefore “does not show he 13 was deprived of due process. Nor does he show in any event that having a copy of the State’s 14 answer could have altered the ultimate determination that his petition was untimely.” Id., at 2. 15 The R&R recommends dismissal with prejudice of what the R&R construes as a petition 16 for habeas corpus, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The R&R observes that Schefflin’s claims are 17 for civil rights violations based on Defendant’s purported failure to serve on him the State’s 18 response to his PRP, not a challenge to the fact or conditions of his confinement. The R&R 19 concludes that “[b]ecause habeas corpus relief cannot be granted, the Court is without subject 20 matter jurisdiction to consider the petition and it should be dismissed with prejudice.” R&R at 8. 21 The Complaint does not reference § 2254, and the Court does not believe that Schefflin

22 23

24 ORDER

25 2 R&R’s recommendation of dismissal should be adopted. The claims currently before the Court 3 have already been adjudicated, and are barred by the principles of res judicata and issue 4 preclusion. See Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 322 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The doctrine of 5 issue preclusion prevents relitigation of all issues of fact or law that were actually litigated and 6 necessarily decided in a prior proceeding.”) (citation omitted). 7 Furthermore, as the Washington Supreme Court has already concluded on the same set of 8 facts, even if all allegations in the complaint were true, Schefflin has failed to show that he has 9 been deprived of due process.2 Compl., Ex. K. The Court therefore dismisses with prejudice 10 Schefflin’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 11 DATED this 7th day of March, 2023.

12 A 13 14 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 15 16

1 The magistrate judge understandably—but, the Court concludes, erroneously—construed Schefflin’s claims as a 17 habeas petition, based upon Schefflin’s use of a form captioned “Declaration and Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in a Federal Habeas Action.” Dkt. No. 1. That form explicitly states “DO NOT use this form if you are 18 bringing a civil action.” Adjacent to that admonishment, however, is a note, handwritten presumably by Schefflin, that states “Only form available in Law Library.” Id. On the form, where the applicant is asked to choose the habeas 19 statute under which he is bringing his claims, Schefflin appears to have selected, and then crossed out, “§ 2254.” That Schefflin did not intend to bring a habeas claim is further supported by a later statement, in a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, in which Scheffling stated “[t]his request is being presented to this Court due to the Court’s 20 changing the Proposed Complaint for Declaratory Relief to a Habeas Corpus.” Dkt. No. 6, at 1. Accordingly, this Court concludes that dismissing Schefflin’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as 21 the R&R recommends, is not appropriate, as Schefflin did not actually bring his claims under that statute. 2 On March 6, 2023, the Court received Schefflin’s “Response to this Court’s Motion/Order to Dismiss,” construed as objections to the R&R. Dkt. No. 18. The filing is untimely, despite multiple warnings from the Court that “No 22 further extensions will be granted.” Schefflin has had nearly seven months to respond to the R&R. This late filing will therefore not be considered; however, the Court notes that nothing in Schefflin’s Response calls into question 23 any of the Court’s findings and conclusions herein.