Vorak v. Servatius
| Decision Date | 03 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-CV-0335-SMJ,13-CV-0335-SMJ |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Washington |
| Parties | KALE VORAK, Plaintiff, v. JOHN SERVATIUS and CHUCK PRATHER, Defendants. |
Before the Court, without oral argument, are Plaintiff's Affidavit of Prejudice, ECF No. 67, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 40, and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, ECF No. 52. Having reviewed the pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully informed and for the reasons that follow finds no prejudice, grants Defendants' summary judgment motion, and denies Plaintiff leave to amend complaint.
Plaintiff is a Washington State prisoner in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) currently housed at the Airway Heights Corrections Center (AHCC). Defendant Servatius is an Investigator 3 at AHCC and plans, directs, coordinates, and supervises all functions of the Intelligence and Investigations (I&I) Unit at AHCC. Defendant Prather is employed by Correctional Industries as a Correctional Industries Manager 4, responsible for the day-to-day managing operations of Correctional Industries' two centralized distribution centers.
The Correctional Industries Commissary at AHCC processes and fills orders from five DOC facilities, including AHCC. Until August 2013, offenders placed commissary orders using a paper ordering system. After the orders were entered, offenders working in the AHCC commissary would gather the items for each order. Orders were then sent from the AHCC commissary to the appropriate facility. Until February 3, 2012, Plaintiff worked in the commissary as an offender gathering the items for each order.
In early February 2012, commissary staff began a preliminary investigation into possible thefts from the commissary using fabricated orders. Patrick Mercer, a Correctional Industries Supervisor 2, examined fulfilled orders and foundinconsistencies and discrepancies in commissary orders pointing to orders being fabricated. Three offenders were named as suspects of the investigation: Plaintiff, Darron Deitrick, and William Davis. On February 3, 2012, Plaintiff was suspended from his job in the commissary pursuant to DOC Policy 710.400 because of the pending investigation into his theft from the commissary. That same day, Plaintiff, along with Deitrick and Davis, was referred for segregation pursuant to DOC Policy 320.200 because of his status as a suspect in the pending investigation, and Defendant Servatius completed the required DOC 17-075 Segregation Authorization form.
On February 7, 2012, before any segregation review could take place, Offenders Deitrick and Davis were released. Also on February 7, 2012, Offender Richard Harmon was placed in segregation as part of the investigation. On February 7, 14, 21, and 28, 2012, pursuant to DOC Policy 320.200, a weekly classification review was conducted for Plaintiff's classification and continued placement in segregation. After each review, due to the ongoing investigation, it was determined Plaintiff was to remain in segregation pending completion of the investigation into theft from the commissary. On February 17, 2012, after learning Defendant Prather was interviewing witnesses regarding the commissary theft, Plaintiff filed a grievance complaining that Defendant Prather should not be permitted to do the investigation. Around February 22, 2012, this grievance wasdenied because it was related to an infraction. At the February 28, 2012 segregation review, it was noted on the review form that an infraction report from the investigation was being submitted. Accordingly, as the investigation was nearing completion, Plaintiff was set to be released from segregation, and was released on March 5, 2012. During this same time, Offender Harmon's segregation classification was reviewed on February 9, 16, and 23, 2012, and he was retained in segregation because the investigation into theft from the commissary was still pending. Harmon was released from segregation on March 2, 2012.
On March 13, 2012, a review of Plaintiff's job suspension was conducted. After Defendant Prather advised of his concerns for the safety and security of the commissary if Plaintiff was allowed to work there, the review team recommended Plaintiff be terminated from his job in the commissary. After leaving this review, Plaintiff filed a grievance against the commissary complaining that he was terminated without cause. This grievance was denied because any decision by the Facility Risk Management Team (FRMT) could be appealed. The Job Assignment Coordinator reviewed the recommendation from FRMT and concurred with terminating Plaintiff's job. Plaintiff was terminated from his job in the commissary on March 20, 2012. On March 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed another grievance against the commissary alleging the commissary had unfair hiring andfiring practices. On March 29, 2012, Defendant Servatius submitted the initial serious infraction reports for Plaintiff, Deitrick, and Davis. Subsequently, due to the pending infraction which gave the commissary cause to deny employment to Plaintiff, his March 26, 2012 grievance was denied.
On September 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Civil Rights Complaint against Defendants John Servatius, Donna Byrnes, and Ronald Haynes. ECF No. 1. On November 6, 2013, the Court having screened Plaintiff's Complaint directed Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his Complaint or file an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 8. On December 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants John Servatius and Chuck Prather.2 ECF No. 9. On January 24, 2014, the Court having determined that a response from Defendants was necessary, directed the U.S. Marshals' Service to serve Defendants with Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 10. Defendants filed an Answer on March 25, 2014, ECF No. 16, and held a Telephonic Scheduling Conference on May 28, 2014, ECF No. 24. On July 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. ECF No. 28. On July 28, 2014, this case was reassigned to this Court and the Court issued a new Scheduling Order. ECF Nos. 33 and 34. On August 6, 2014, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff requesting an extension of timeto serve written discovery requests, which the Court construed as a motion. ECF No. 36. On August 7, 2014, Defendants sought a protective order. ECF No. 37. The next day, Defendants filed for summary judgment. ECF No. 40. On August 12, 2014, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel and granting an extension of time to serve discovery. ECF No. 50. On August 19, 2014, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court objecting to the Court's order and maintaining he was entitled to production of records at Defendants' expense. ECF No. 51. The Court, liberally construing Plaintiff's letter as a Motion to Reconsider, denied the motion on August 20, 2014. ECF No. 54. Also on August 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, ECF No. 52, and included his proposed Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 52-1. Plaintiff sought expedite consideration of his motion to amend, ECF No. 53, but the Court concluding the matter would be best addressed while also deciding Defendants' summary judgment motion, denied Plaintiff's request to expedite consideration, ECF No. 57.
On September 2, 2014, the Court received Plaintiff's motion to extend his time to respond to the summary judgment motion. ECF No. 58. While the Court granted Plaintiff's motion and placed a copy of the Order, ECF No. 61, in the mail on September 9, 2014, it appears Plaintiff did not receive it until September 15, 2014, ECF No. 67 (). The Court received Plaintiff's Response, ECF No. 62, to the summary judgment motion on September 10, 2014.3 On September 17, 2014, the Court received Plaintiff's letter dated September 15, 2014, in which Plaintiff did not seek leave to submit additional materials in support of his Response but instead objected to the Court's previous Orders and sought immediate rulings on his motions. ECF No. 66. On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Prejudice, presumably pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. To date, Defendants have not filed a reply in support of their summary judgment motion nor has Plaintiff sought to supplement his response based upon the discovery he originally maintained justified needing more time to file a response, ECF No. 58.
Plaintiff's letter maintains that he was prejudiced by the Court's granting of an extension for him to file his response because after he mailed his response on September 8, 2014, it left Defendants with "way too much time to formulate a reply." ECF No. 66. However, Defendants have not filed a reply, and even if they had, an extra few weeks would not amount to a prejudice against Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds no prejudice by the extension of the deadlines. The remainder of Plaintiff's letter asks the Court to reconsider its prior orders. Liberally construed as a motion for reconsideration, the Court finds nothingpresented to justify reconsidering the Court's earlier rulings. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (). Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff's letter, ECF No. 66, requests action from this Court it is denied.
Plaintiff maintains that the Court has a "personal bias or prejudice against me because of my status as an inmate litigant." ECF No. 67...
To continue reading
Request your trial