Scott v. Love
| Decision Date | 14 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 83419-3-I |
| Parties | PAMELA K. SCOTT, Appellant, v. LOUISE LOVE, WENDY STIGALL, TINA BURGESS, DENISE HINRICHSEN, MAC PEVEY, ELISABETH RASLER, LAURA AMBROSCH, ANNMARIE AYLWARD, MONICA DISTEFANO, ALLAN SOPER, DEBBIE KENDALL, DIANNE ASHLOCK, KATHY GASTREICH, DENISE VAUGHAN, ERICA GREEN, and TIM LANG, in their individual and professional capacities; WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ANNA KLEIN and COLIN HAYES in their individual and professional capacities; and CLARK COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
PAMELA K. SCOTT, Appellant,
v.
LOUISE LOVE, WENDY STIGALL, TINA BURGESS, DENISE HINRICHSEN, MAC PEVEY, ELISABETH RASLER, LAURA AMBROSCH, ANNMARIE AYLWARD, MONICA DISTEFANO, ALLAN SOPER, DEBBIE KENDALL, DIANNE ASHLOCK, KATHY GASTREICH, DENISE VAUGHAN, ERICA GREEN, and TIM LANG, in their individual and professional capacities; WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ANNA KLEIN and COLIN HAYES in their individual and professional capacities; and CLARK COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Respondents.
No. 83419-3-I
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1
March 14, 2022
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Andrus, A.C.J.
Pamela Scott appeals the dismissal of her lawsuit against the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney's Office
(CCPAO), and several individuals employed by those agencies.[1] Scott's lawsuit alleged negligent and intentional misconduct related to actions taken to amend her special sex offender sentencing alternative (SSOSA) sentence. Although we acknowledge that Scott remained under custodial supervision for approximately 10 months past her original sentence end date, she has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
On November 2, 2011, Scott pleaded guilty to three counts of first degree possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The standard sentencing range for Scott's offenses was 46 to 61 months of confinement. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the State asked the trial court to impose a SSOSA, 61 months in total duration, with 12 months of confinement and a 49 month suspended prison sentence. Under SSOSA, the court is authorized to suspend an offender's sentence, but it must also impose a term of confinement of up to twelve months and a "term of community custody equal to the length of the suspended sentence." RCW 9.94A.670(5)(a) and (b).
At the sentencing hearing on December 21, 2011, the court sentenced Scott to a 49-month suspended SSOSA, with the condition that she serve 366 days in confinement and remain on community custody for the length of the suspended sentence. At that time, boilerplate language on the SSOSA judgment and sentence form incorrectly indicated that the community custody portion of the sentence was to be calculated by subtracting
the period of confinement from the total suspended sentence. Thus, the following day, the parties returned to court to modify the judgment and sentence by striking the 49 month sentence and writing in 61 months. The intended result was a total sentence of 61 months, consisting of 366 days of confinement plus 49 months of community custody. However, because Scott's ordered term of community custody (49 months) did not match the length of her suspended sentence (61 months), the revised judgment and sentence did not comply with RCW 9.94A.670(5).
In January 2016, after the Administrative Office of the Courts addressed the faulty language on the judgment and sentence form, DOC directed its records staff to review SSOSA sentences for possible errors. On January 26, 2016, DOC records technician Louise Love notified Clark County prosecutor Anna Klein that a "clerical error" in Scott's judgment and sentence form required DOC to reduce Scott's community custody term from 61 months to 49 months, below the term required by law. Love asked the prosecutor to "provide an amended order correcting the clerical error and providing a term of community custody consistent with RCW 9.94A.670(5)."
On February 17, 2016, Clark County prosecutor Colin Hayes filed a CrR 7.8(a) motion in superior court for an order to correct Scott's judgment and sentence on the ground that the "clerical error" resulted in an impermissibly shortened period of community supervision.[2] Over Scott's objection, on March 23, 2016, the trial court granted the motion and entered an order amending the judgment and sentence by striking the flawed language in the original form and replacing it with revised language stating that "the court places the defendant on community custody under the charge of DOC for the length of
the suspended sentence." The order specified that the amended language "provides for community custody consistent with the suspended sentence not the sentence remaining. The suspended sentence was for 61 months therefore the community custody is for 61 months."
Scott appealed the amended judgment and sentence, arguing that the trial court lacked authority to modify it under CrR 7.8(a) because the alleged error was not clerical. While Scott's appeal was pending, Hayes filed a motion to revoke Scott's SSOSA. The motion was based on a report from Scott's community corrections officer (CCO) that was issued approximately one month before the end date for Scott's original term of community custody. In the report, the CCO stated "[t]here [is] currently no documentation that supports Scott has completed" a court-ordered mental health evaluation and certified victim awareness class. Hayes offered to withdraw the revocation motion if Scott agreed to withdraw her appeal, reasoning that this "would ensure that [Scott] has the opportunity to complete the remaining requirements before the expiration of community custody." Scott quickly came into compliance with her SSOSA conditions, and the State withdrew the revocation motion.
In September 2016, Scott filed a tort claim form with the Office of Risk Management, alleging that DOC and the Clark County prosecutors' actions and omissions caused her to be wrongfully sentenced to an additional year of community custody. The Attorney General's Office (AGO) immediately notified DOC of Scott's claim.
In May 2017, the State conceded that the trial court had erred by amending the judgment and sentence under CrR 7.8 because it corrected a mistake of law, not a clerical
error.[3] The State asked the appellate court to remand Scott's case to the trial court with instructions to strike the amended judgment and sentence, thereby returning Scott to the shorter period of community custody. The appellate court agreed, and remanded the case. On June 20, 2017, the trial court struck the March 2016 order amending Scott's judgment and sentence. Scott's sentence reverted to the original period of community custody, and she was released from supervision.
On May 31, 2019, Scott filed a complaint in the superior court against DOC and numerous DOC employees (collectively, the DOC defendants) as well as Clark County and prosecuting attorney Colin Hayes (collectively, the Clark County defendants).[4] Scott asserted claims of (1) false imprisonment, (2) violations under article I, sections 3, 7, 9, and 14 of the Washington Constitution, (3) civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress and outrage. Scott asserted that she told the defendants her amended sentence was illegal, yet they did nothing to cure the error, thus forcing her to remain on community custody 10 months past her original sentence end date in violation of her constitutional rights. Scott also alleged that Hayes's baseless, vindictive threat to revoke her SSOSA unless she dropped her appeal violated her constitutional rights and caused severe emotional distress. Scott sought monetary damages and injunctive relief.
The DOC defendants moved to dismiss Scott's complaint under CR 12(b)(6), arguing that (1) they had no authority to override or disregard the amended judgment and
sentence, (2) no private right of action exists under the Washington Constitution, and (3) they are entitled to qualified immunity. The Clark County defendants also moved to dismiss Scott's claims because the claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity or were not cognizable under § 1983.[5]
The trial court dismissed Smith's claims with prejudice. The court denied Scott's motion to amend her complaint to add Judge Stahnke as a defendant, stating that "such addition would be futile because of the doctrine of judicial immunity." The court awarded $200 in attorney fees and costs to the DOC defendants and the Clark County defendants.[6] Scott appeals.
ANALYSIS
Scott asserts that the trial court erred by (1) dismissing her § 1983 claim against Love, (2) dismissing her false imprisonment claim against the DOC defendants, (3) dismissing Hayes on the basis of prosecutorial immunity, (4) denying her motion to amend the complaint to add, as a defendant, the superior court judge who signed the amended judgment and sentence, (5) dismissing her claims with prejudice instead of giving her an opportunity to amend her complaint, and (6) failing to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law.[7] Although we acknowledge that Scott remained under custodial
supervision for approximately 10 months past her original release date, we find no basis to reverse the trial court's rulings.
A. Standard of Review
Under CR 12(b)(6), a complaint can be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." We review CR 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo. FutureSelect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 954, 962, 331 P.3d 29 (2014). "A CR 12(b)(6) motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint." McAfee v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 193 Wn.App. 220, 226, 370 P.3d 25 (2016). We view all facts alleged in the complaint as true and may consider hypothetical facts supporting the plaintiff's claim. FutureSelect, 180 Wn.2d at 962. "But the court is not required to accept the complaint's legal conclusions as true." Rodriguez v. Loudeye Corp., 144 Wn.App. 709, 717-18, 189 P.3d 168 (2008). Dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts consistent with the complaint that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial