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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MATTHEW G. SILVA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. C06-984-JLR-JPD

)

v. )

)

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

Plaintiff Matthew Silva is a state prisoner who is in the custody of the Washington

Department of Corrections. On October 24, 2005, plaintiff presented a civil rights complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for filing. (See

Dkt. No. 8, Attachment 3.) In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that the named defendants had

conspired to violate his constitutional rights during the course of his incarceration at two King

County corrections facilities in 2004 and 2005. (See id.) More specifically, plaintiff alleged that

defendants had conspired together to violate plaintiff’s right to confidential telephone

conversations, to obstruct and delay plaintiff’s legal mail, and to retaliate against plaintiff for

exposing systemic violations of prisoners rights in King County corrections facilities. (Id.) 

Plaintiff identified the following individuals as defendants in his complaint: George W.

Bush, President of the United States; Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General; John

Case 2:06-cv-00984-JLR Document 23 Filed 02/02/07 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE - 2

Potter, Postmaster General; Christine Gregoire, Governor of the State of Washington; Norm

Maleng, King County Prosecutor; and, Reed Holtgeerts, King County Jail Director. (See Dkt. No.

8, Attachment 3.) Plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief and damages for the alleged

violations of his civil rights. (Id.) 

Plaintiff, in conjunction with his complaint, submitted to the District of Columbia court an

application to proceed with the action in forma pauperis and a motion for temporary restraining

order. (See Dkt. No. 8, Attachments 4 and 5.) On November 9, 2005, the District of Columbia

court issued an order transferring plaintiff’s action to this District. (Id., Attachment 1.) In that

order, the court also denied plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order. (Id.) Plaintiff’s file

was received in this District on July 12, 2006. (See Dkt. No. 8.) 

On October 30, 2006, plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was

granted and his complaint was filed in this Court. (See Dkt. Nos. 18 and 19.) On the same date,

this Court issued an Order declining to serve plaintiff’s complaint and granting him leave to amend. 

(Dkt. No. 21.) Plaintiff was advised therein that in order to adequately allege a cause of action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 he must allege facts showing how individually named defendants caused or

personally participated in causing the harm alleged in the complaint. (Id., citing Arnold v.

International Business Machines Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981)). Plaintiff was further

advised that his complaint was defective because he had not alleged any facts demonstrating that any

of the named defendants had personally participated in causing the harm alleged in the complaint. 

(Id.)

Plaintiff was granted thirty days within which to submit an amended complaint curing the

specified deficiencies, and was advised that his failure to timely submit an amended complaint

would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. (Id.) To date, plaintiff has filed no amended complaint.

When a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, the Court

Case 2:06-cv-00984-JLR Document 23 Filed 02/02/07 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE - 3

may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Because plaintiff failed to amend his complaint to adequately allege a cause of

action under § 1983, this Court recommends that this action be dismissed, without prejudice,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A proposed order accompanies this Report and

Recommendation. 

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2007.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00984-JLR Document 23 Filed 02/02/07 Page 3 of 3