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 ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RONALD L. BASKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAMARA PAPINI,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-1565-JCC-JPD

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s proposed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint (Dkt. No.

1), the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue,

(Dkt. No. 8), Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (“Objections”) (Dkt. No. 10), Plaintiff’s motions for

court-appointed counsel (Dkt. No. 11), and to “enlarge [RCW 9A.50.020]” (Dkt. No. 13), and the

balance of the record. Having reviewed the materials submitted by the parties and the record, and

having determined that oral argument is not necessary, the Court hereby finds and rules as follows:

//

//

//

//

Case 2:05-cv-01565-JCC Document 15 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 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 ORDER – 2

I. BACKGROUND

As part of his probation sentence, a state court ordered Plaintiff to undergo a treatment program. 

(Case No. C05-1166-JLR-MAT, Pl.’s Prop. Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) 3.) The program eventually released

Plaintiff because he was not making adequate progress. (Id.) After he was released from the treatment

program, Defendant arrested Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s probation was subsequently revoked. (Pl.’s Prop.

Compl. 4.) Plaintiff alleges that his arrest and incarceration were unlawful and also alleges that his

probation should not have been revoked. (Id.) As a result of his probation revocation, Plaintiff alleges he

is no longer eligible to receive payments from a disability pension and has brought this § 1983 claim to

recover lost wages for the term of his allegedly unlawful incarceration. (Id. at 4.) 

II. ANALYSIS

This Court reviews the record de novo when considering the objections to a magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

A state prisoner seeking damages in a § 1983 suit for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment “must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged

by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called

into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Erlin v. United States, 364 F.3d

1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994)). A claim for

damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not

cognizable under § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87. This rule rests on the principle that “civil tort

actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.” 

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. Accordingly, if a judgment in favor of Plaintiff would necessarily imply the

invalidity of his conviction or sentence, as it relates to the revocation of his probation, the complaint must

be dismissed, unless Plaintiff can demonstrate that his conviction or sentence already has been invalidated. 

Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 

//

Case 2:05-cv-01565-JCC Document 15 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 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

1

 Distilled to its essence, Plaintiff’s motion appears to be an additional claim for damages under

RCW 9A.50.50. 

ORDER – 3

Plaintiff’s claim for damages is not cognizable under § 1983. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff

necessarily would implicate the validity of his sentence imposed after the revocation of his probation. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made a warrantless arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment,

ultimately leading to the revocation of his probation and his subsequent period of incarceration during

which he was unable to receive payments from his disability pension. In addition, his Objections to the

R&R further draw into question the validity of the decision to revoke his probation. Accordingly, a

judgment in favor of Plaintiff necessarily would speak to the propriety of Plaintiff’s sentence. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that his incarceration has been invalidated by a state or federal

court. The record does not show any ruling declaring Plaintiff’s sentence invalid, nor does it show that

he has initiated a challenge to the fact or duration of his incarceration. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim is

not cognizable under § 1983. Because Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim must be dismissed, his motion for courtappointed counsel is moot and the Court need not address it.

 Plaintiff’s motion to “enlarge RCW 9A.50.020” is meritless.1 He appears to claim that his

allegedly unlawful seizure prevented him from acquiring medical care in violation of RCW 9A.50.020,

which prohibits interference with an individual’s access to a health care facility. However, at the time of

his allegedly unlawful seizure, Plaintiff already had been dismissed from his treatment program and no

longer was receiving treatment for his posttraumatic stress disorder. (Pl.’s Prop. Compl. 3.) 

Additionally, Plaintiff previously had pursued a claim against his treatment center for wrongfully

discharging him from care, and this claim was dismissed. (Case No. C05-1166-JLR-MAT, Order (Dkt.

No. 8).) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. 

//

//

//

Case 2:05-cv-01565-JCC Document 15 Filed 01/27/06 Page 3 of 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 ORDER – 4

III. CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED:

(1) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s objections;

(2) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation;

(3) Plaintiff’s proposed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

(4) Plaintiff’s motion for court-appointed counsel is DENIED as MOOT;

(5) Plaintiff’s motion to enlarge statute is DENIED; and

(6) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, to Defendant, and to the

Honorable James P. Donohue.

SO ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2006.

A

John C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01565-JCC Document 15 Filed 01/27/06 Page 4 of 4