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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CHARLES V. FARNSWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA CARTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5223RJB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of Judge J. Kelley Arnold

(Dkt. 16). The court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file herein.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Charles Farnsworth filed a civil rights complaint in Clallam County Superior Court, alleging that his

rights to equal protection and meaningful access to a law library and the courts had been violated. Dkt. 1-2

at 7. The defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. 1.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on both claims, arguing that Mr. Farnsworth was not denied

access to the library, that he was not in a protected class or denied a fundamental right, that defendant

Sandra Carter did not personally participate in the conduct allegedly depriving Mr. Farnsworth of his

rights, and that both defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 9.

In his response, Mr. Farnsworth reiterates that even though he had access to the library, he was not

granted priority access; that the amount of time during which he was permitted to access the library was

insufficient to prepare a motion for discretionary review with the Washington State Supreme Court; that

Case 3:05-cv-05223-RJB Document 17 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 of 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

the law library was inadequate; and that despite being eligible and approved, he was not granted priority

access in contrast to other eligible applicants. Dkt. 10. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. ACCESS TO THE COURTS

As fully set forth in the Report and Recommendations, the plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he was denied

access to the library or the courts, and the court should adopt the Report and Recommendation with

respect to that claim.

B. EQUAL PROTECTION

The plaintiff also fails to demonstrate that he was denied equal protection of the law. The Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “no State shall ‘deny to any person within

its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly

situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985)

(citation omitted). To state an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mr. Farnsworth must

demonstrate that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based upon his

membership in a protected class. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998). The

disproportionate impact on an identifiable group of a “facially neutral” policy may satisfy the intent

requirement only if it shows an invidious or discriminatory purpose underlying the policy. Village of

Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1977). Because offenders eligible

for priority access to law libraries do not constitute a suspect class for equal protection purposes, a policy

that purposefully treats the eligible offenders differently or has a disproportionate impact on eligible

offenders need only be “rationally related to legitimate legislative goals” to pass constitutional muster.

Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.1996).

The plaintiff’s equal protection allegation reads as follows: “Plaintiff also states that his rights to

equal protection were violated when he was not given priority access, although eligible and approved, as

any other eligible offender under DOC Policy Directive at Clallam Bay.” Dkt. 10 at 8. Reading this

allegation in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has failed to allege, much less

demonstrate, that he was part of an identifiable group that was intentionally discriminated against or

disproportionately impacted by a facially neutral policy with a discriminatory purpose. The court should

Case 3:05-cv-05223-RJB Document 17 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 3

therefore grant the motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s equal protection claim.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Judge J. Kelley Arnold (Dkt. 16)

ADOPTED. Defendants’ Motion for Summary (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any

party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 

 DATED this 28th day of November, 2005.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05223-RJB Document 17 Filed 11/28/05 Page 3 of 3