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 TACOMA

RONALD L. BASKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN BOVENKAMP,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5150RJB

ORDER TO AMEND THE

COMPLAINT 

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

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

alleges defendant Bovenkamp is a regional administrator for the Washington State Department of

Corrections. Plaintiff alleges he asked defendant Bovenkamp for a new probation officer because he

alleged an unlawful seizure against the officer assigned to him. The request was not honored and

plaintiff filed this action alleging a due process violation. (Dkt. # 3).

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, and the balance of the record contained

herein, does hereby find and ORDER as follows:

(l) The Court declines to order that plaintiff's complaint be served on defendant until he

corrects the deficiencies identified below:

(a) 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

Case 3:06-cv-05150-RJB Document 6 Filed 04/21/06 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

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). 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). 

(b) In addition, plaintiff must allege facts showing how individually named defendants caused

or personally participated in causing the harm alleged in the complaint. Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d

1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). A defendant cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely on the

basis of supervisory responsibility or position. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services,

436 U.S. 658, 694 n.58 (1978). A theory of respondeat superior is not sufficient to state a § 1983

claim. Padway v. Palches, 665 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1982).

(c) It does not appear plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation. Plaintiff may not dictate

who his probation officer is and he had no liberty or property interest to which due process attaches. 

The concept of due process derives from the Fourteenth Amendment which states in pertinent part:

nor shall any State deprive a person of life, liberty or property, without due process of

law.

U.S. Const. Amend XIV.

(d) Plaintiff has no liberty or property interest in who his probation officer is. Therefore he

has failed to state a claim against defendant Bovenkamp.

(2) Plaintiff is instructed to file an amended complaint curing, if possible, the

above-mentioned defect by May 26th, 2006. If an amended complaint is not timely filed, or if plaintiff

fails to adequately correct the deficiencies identified in this Order, the Court will recommend

dismissal of this action as frivolous.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order.

DATED this 21st day of April, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05150-RJB Document 6 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 2