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 GRANTING MOTIONS 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CHARLES O’CAIN, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. C06-0035RSL

)

v. )

)

RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

) MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on motions for summary judgment filed by all defendants

(Dkt. ## 28, 29). The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s civil rights complaint, defendants’ motions

for summary judgment, the Report and Recommendation of Judge James P. Donohue, United States

Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, adopts the Report and Recommendation to the extent

that it dismissed all claims against police officers Paul Guest and Jason Renggli, dismissed the § 1983

against Sergeant Manning and King County, dismissed the § 1985 claim against Sergeant Manning,

and dismissed the claim for monetary damages against Sergeant Manning. The Court also dismisses

plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief.

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Regional Justice Center (“RJC”) for two felony counts. 

He was convicted of kidnaping in the first degree on January 14, 2005 and sentenced to 171 months

incarceration. As of the date of defendants’ filings in this case, he was awaiting trial on a charge of

Case 2:06-cv-00035-RSL Document 49 Filed 11/08/06 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

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

rape in the second degree. While plaintiff was incarcerated, RJC officials learned that he had allegedly

used jail telephones to defraud community members. On April 28, 2005, a King County Superior

Court Judge granted a motion to revoke plaintiff’s telephone privileges. Plaintiff subsequently filed a

motion to remove the “phone deadlock;” the motion was denied on April 21, 2006. According to an

RJC official, “[a]ll inmates with court orders for phone deadlock are placed in ad-seg to ensure that

they do not have access to a phone.” Declaration of Teri Hansen, (Dkt. #41) (“Hansen Decl.”) at ¶ 7. 

Pursuant to that practice, plaintiff “will not be considered for removal from ad-seg- placement until the

court determines that phone deadlock is no longer necessary.” Id. at ¶ 10. 

Plaintiff argues that he has been denied procedural due process because he has not been

granted a meaningful opportunity to challenge his confinement in administrative segregation. Even if

the Court assumes, without deciding, that plaintiff has a liberty interest in not being kept in segregation

indefinitely without meaningful review, plaintiff’s claim fails because he has been granted periodic,

meaningful opportunities to challenge his segregation. After an inmate is placed in administrative

segregation, the decision is reviewed within a day, within seven days, and again every thirty days

thereafter. Hansen Decl. at ¶ 7. Reviews are face to face interviews between a classification staff

member and the inmate. Inmates may appeal their placement, though plaintiff has never done so. 

Plaintiff’s placement has been reviewed on a monthly basis. Id. at ¶ 8.

Despite those procedures, the Report and Recommendation recommended a finding that King

County intends to keep plaintiff in administrative segregation indefinitely without meaningful review. 

It noted that the reviews are “meaningless gestures” because the RJC will continue administrative

segregation while plaintiff is on a court-ordered phone restriction, but the court ordered the phone

restriction stating that it would “not micromanage the jail.” Dkt. #42, Ex. B. However, the court’s

orders did not merely rubber stamp an RJC decision. Rather, the first court order imposed the

restriction, and the second order, while declining to micromanage the jail, also refused to lift the

Case 2:06-cv-00035-RSL Document 49 Filed 11/08/06 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

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

restriction “based on evidence presented that created a prima facie case that the defendant committed

several crimes in the jail.” Dkt. ## 41-2, 42. Furthermore, plaintiff has not shown that the RJC’s

practice of keeping inmates in administrative segregation while they are under phone restrictions is in

any way improper. The due process clause does not require a correctional facility to abrogate a valid

policy or practice or to make an exception for plaintiff. Although plaintiff may not agree with the

court’s phone restriction or the RJC’s practice, he has not shown a violation of his due process rights.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motions for summary

judgment (Dkt. ## 28, 29). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of

defendants and against plaintiff. 

DATED this 8th day of November, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00035-RSL Document 49 Filed 11/08/06 Page 3 of 3