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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT facility

DONALD O. SALAVEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOCTORS OF MENTAL HEALTH AT

WASHINGTON CORRECTIONS CENTER et

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5679RJB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION 

NOTED FOR:

April 7th, 2006

This civil rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. #

4). The complaint in this action does not name any person as a defendant. On November 11th, 2005

the court entered an order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint that named the defendants. 

(Dkt. # 6). Since that time plaintiff has filed two service order forms. One form names Eric Currier

and the other form names Roberta Knesse. (Dkt. Staff note dated December 19th, 2005). Plaintiff

did not file an amended complaint that tells the court what these two people did and why plaintiff

believes these two people to be proper defendants.

A second order to file an amended complaint was entered giving plaintiff another opportunity

Case 3:05-cv-05679-RJB Document 9 Filed 03/14/06 Page 1 of 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

27

28 ORDER

to file a proper complaint. (Dkt. # 8). Plaintiff has not complied with the courts orders and has not

filed a complaint that names a proper defendant. The court now recommends this action be

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege that (l) the conduct

complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law and that (2) the conduct

deprived a person of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v.

Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (emphasis added). Section 1983 is the appropriate avenue to remedy

an alleged wrong only if both of these elements are present. Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350,

1354 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020 (1986). 

Plaintiff has been given two opportunities to file an amended complaint and has failed to

comply with the court’s orders. Further, he was specifically informed that failure to file an amended

complaint would result in a Report and Recommendation that this action be dismissed.

The court should DISMISS this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A proposed order

accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

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

parties shall have ten (10) 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 April 7th, 2006.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05679-RJB Document 9 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 of 2