Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01881/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01881-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

ANTHONY BOTEILHO 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CHRISTINE GREGOIRE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C09-5407BHS/JRC 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO TRANSFER THIS ACTION TO THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR ARIZONA AT TUCSON 

 

NOTED FOR: July 2, 2009 

 

 This Civil Rights Action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has been referred to the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local 

Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. 

 Before the court are a number of motions. Defendants ask that this action either be 

dismissed or transferred to Arizona (Dkt. # 25). Plaintiff asks that the proceedings be stayed 

pending a decision by the Washington State Supreme Court regarding his underlying conviction 

(Dkt # 42). Finally, defendants ask for a one-day extension to reply regarding the motion to 

dismiss or transfer (Dkt. # 49). 

Case 2:10-cv-01881-NVW--LOA Document 59 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 6
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Defendant’s motion for a one-day extension of time to file a reply is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action is DENIED as plaintiff’s underlying conviction is not 

relevant to these proceedings. The motion to dismiss or transfer the case is a dispositive motion 

requiring the following Report and Recommendation. 

FACTS

 Plaintiff was convicted of a crime in a Washington State Superior Court. On March 3, 

2006, he was transferred from the Airway Heights Correctional Center in Eastern Washington to 

a private prison in Eloy Arizona -- the Eloy Detention Center. After transfer to another private 

prison in Eloy -- Red Rock Corrections Center -- he was attacked by inmates. 

 Plaintiff alleges that he was severely injured in the attack and that he did not receive 

adequate medical health care at either Arizona facility. He also claims that when he was 

returned to Washington he received inadequate care at the Airway Heights Corrections Center 

(Dkt. # 10, amended complaint). 

 He also claims that his placement in the Florence Corrections Center was retaliatory, 

improper, and violated his right to practice religion and right of access to courts. He names 

several Washington defendants, as well as the persons in charge of the private facilities in 

Arizona. He brings the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, but also raises Arizona and 

Washington tort claims. 

 The plaintiff is now housed in Western Washington at the Monroe Complex- Twin 

Rivers Corrections Center. 

 After careful review of the record and the allegations in the amended complaint, this 

court concludes that the nexus for this action is the Red Rock Correctional Center in Eloy 

Arizona, where plaintiff was allegedly attacked, and the Florence Correctional Center in Eloy 

Case 2:10-cv-01881-NVW--LOA Document 59 Filed 06/08/10 Page 2 of 6
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Arizona, where he was placed in segregation and received medical treatment. Eloy Arizona is in 

Pinal County. The United States District Court for Arizona at Tucson would be the most likely 

location to hear a case arising out of that county. 

DISCUSSION

 A. Motion to dismiss. 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) provides that a court should 

dismiss a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) either because of the lack of a cognizable legal 

theory or because of the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

For purposes of ruling on this motion, material allegations in the complaint are taken as 

admitted and the complaint is construed in the plaintiff's favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 

1295 (9th Cir. 1983). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not 

need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement 

to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of 

a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 

1964-65 (2007)(internal citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right 

to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint 

are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 1965. Plaintiffs must allege “enough facts to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. 

 As a motion to dismiss, the pleading filed by defendants is inadequate. Defendants make 

conclusory statements about enjoying immunity, but the defendants do not clearly raise that 

affirmative defense by informing the court what type of immunity the defendants claim applies. 

Case 2:10-cv-01881-NVW--LOA Document 59 Filed 06/08/10 Page 3 of 6
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Defendants make, in a conclusory fashion, the argument that plaintiff fails to allege any facts 

stating a claim against Washington defendants. Defendants state: 

 While Plaintiff's claims are not entirely clear, it is evident that none of the 

events giving rise to his claims occurred in Washington. Further, although 

Plaintiff names Washington Defendants, including the Governor and various 

Washington Department of Corrections Officials, the remaining Defendants are 

non-residents. More importantly, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts stating a claim 

against the Washington Defendants – most of whom, enjoy immunity. Indeed, 

Plaintiff complains of an incident that purportedly occurred in Arizona over four 

years ago. Nowhere in his complaint does he allege that the Washington 

Defendants were personally involved in the purported deprivations Plaintiff is 

complaining about in this § 1983 action. Accordingly, venue is not appropriate in 

this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

(Dkt. # 25, page 3-4). 

 Plaintiff alleges there was a contract between the State of Washington and the 

corporation running private prisons in Arizona, and that Governor Gregoire was in charge of 

appointing and monitoring the persons who entered into that contract. He sues other officials for 

their acts or omissions in inmate medical care, inmate classification, inmate movement including 

out-of-state contract placement. He also names Washington Department of Corrections 

employees who were allegedly on site in Arizona monitoring compliance with the contracts (Dkt. 

# 10, page 4). 

 Plaintiff makes clear in his opposition to the motion to dismiss or transfer that the 

contract is part of this action (Dkt. # 44). Plaintiff also raises a claim about the medical care he 

received when he returned to Washington. That medical care was given while he was housed at 

the Airway Heights Corrections Center in Spokane. The court cannot say plaintiff has failed to 

state a claim and concludes that dismissal at this stage, based on this motion, would be improper. 

The motion to dismiss should be DENIED. 

 

Case 2:10-cv-01881-NVW--LOA Document 59 Filed 06/08/10 Page 4 of 6
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 B. Transfer. 

 A District Court is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer an action “for the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” The court considers three 

factors. The factors are: (1) convenience of the parties; (2) convenience of the witnesses; and (3) 

the interest of justice. Grubs v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 404 (D.C. Mont.). 

The burden of proving that a transfer is proper is on the moving party. 

 All defendants move for transfer and argue: 

Because all of the alleged injuries occurred in Arizona, the witnesses reside in 

Arizona, and Arizona law will apply to any of Plaintiff’s state law tort claims, 

venue is not appropriate in this Court and this case should be dismissed. 

Alternatively, this action should be transferred to Arizona for both legal and 

convenience purposes. 

(Dkt. # 25, pages 2-3). 

 The court gives weight to plaintiff’s choice in filing the action in the Western District of 

Washington and notes that several of the Washington defendants are government employees who 

work in Thurston County. However, the alleged assault that gives rise to the majority of the 

claims in this action occurred in Arizona. Evidence, such as medical records and witnesses to 

the assault and conditions in the private prisons, are in Arizona. Although plaintiff maintains 

150 inmates have been returned from Arizona to Washington, he does not provide any details 

about these inmates being witnesses (Dkt. # 44). 

 The decision to place plaintiff in segregation was made while he was housed in the 

Florence Corrections Center in Arizona. In fact, the only claims that allegedly occurred in 

Washington occurred at the Airway Heights Corrections Center in Spokane, which is outside the 

Western District of Washington and located in the Eastern District of Washington. Therefore, 

Case 2:10-cv-01881-NVW--LOA Document 59 Filed 06/08/10 Page 5 of 6
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

witnesses are not most likely to be found in the Western District, but rather indicate that the 

District of Arizona is the proper place for the majority of this action. 

 Both the convenience to the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice militate 

toward transfer of this action. The proper venue for this action is the United States District Court 

in Tucson, Arizona. The address for that court is 405 West Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona, 

85701-5098. Defendant’s motion to transfer the action should be GRANTED. 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report to file written 

objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those 

objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the 

time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on July 

2, 2010, as noted in the caption. 

Dated this 8th day of June, 2010. 

A

J. Richard Creatura 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:10-cv-01881-NVW--LOA Document 59 Filed 06/08/10 Page 6 of 6