01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RONALD L. BASKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, BARBARA MINER,

and CINDY GOSK,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C06-0338-RSM-JPD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has submitted a 

civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint names three defendants:

King County, Barbara Minor, the Clerk of Court for King County Superior Court, and Cindy

Gosk, an employee of the Department of Corrections. (Complaint at 2-3). Plaintiff alleges

that (1) King County has imposed unconstitutional probation conditions on him, by requiring

him to work even though plaintiff alleges that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder;

(2) Barbara Minor improperly refused to accept for filing a previous civil rights action that

plaintiff attempted to file in state court; and (3) Cindy Gosk defamed plaintiff in a telephone

conversation with plaintiff’s mother when Gosk said that plaintiff’s probation had been revoked

because plaintiff would not admit he had a problem. (Proposed Complaint at 3-5). 

Case 2:06-cv-00338-RSM Document 5 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

PAGE -2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court has reviewed the complaint, and

recommends that it be dismissed prior to service on defendants because plaintiff fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. First, plaintiff’s allegations against King County do

not present a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Supreme Court has held that a

prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his

confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). Plaintiff’s challenge to the

grounds on which his probation was apparently revoked is tantamount to a challenge to his

confinement, for if plaintiff were successful with this challenge, his probation would

presumably be restored and his confinement would end. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s

sole avenue for relief is to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, or seek

appropriate relief in state court. Id.; cf. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S. Ct.

1242,1248 (2005) (allowing case to proceed under § 1983 because prisoner’s claim would not

necessarily lead to a speedier release). Consequently, plaintiff’s allegations against King

County fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Second, plaintiff’s allegations that Clerk of Court Barbara Minor improperly refused to

file a previous lawsuit are precluded by the “quasi-judicial immunity” which extends to “court

clerks and other non-judicial officers.” In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 952 (9th Cir. 2002). This

immunity covers “acts which taken out of context would appear ministerial, but when viewed

in context are actually a part of the judicial function.” Id. Defendant Minor’s alleged act of

refusing to accept for filing a civil rights complaint thus appears to be shielded by immunity. 

Finally, plaintiff’s allegations against Cindy Gosk are simply not cognizable under § 1983. 

Defamation, by itself, cannot support a § 1983 claim. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712,

96 S. Ct. 1155 (1976). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against defendants Minor and Gosk also

fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends that the complaint and this action be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In

Case 2:06-cv-00338-RSM Document 5 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

PAGE -3

addition, because the claims are legally frivolous, the court recommends that this dismissal 

count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A proposed Order accompanies this Report

and Recommendation.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00338-RSM Document 5 Filed 03/29/06 Page 3 of 3