Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clavette v. Persels

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

November 4, 2013

PAUL N. CLAVETTE, Plaintiff,
v.
DAWN PERSELS, Defendant.

PAUL N. CLAVETTE, Oregon City, OR, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

ELLEN ROSENBLUM Attorney General JESSICA B. SPOONER Assistant Attorney General Oregon Department of Justice Portland, OR Attorneys for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion (#22) for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Motion (#31) for Summary Judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion and GRANTS Defendant's Motion.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the parties' Memoranda and Declarations in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment.

At some point Plaintiff Paul Clavette was convicted of a crime[1] and placed on probation in Oregon. Plaintiff subsequently sought a transfer of his probation to Washington under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS).

On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff was allowed to move to Washington while the transfer of his probation to Washington was pending.

On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff's transfer was accepted by the State of Washington under ICAOS.

Plaintiff alleges the Washington Department of Corrections (WDOC) "attempted to apply special conditions [on his probation in Washington] that were contrary to Oregon, Washington, and Federal Laws." Am. Compl. at 3. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges in his Motion for Summary Judgment that the Klickitat County, Washington, Probation Department asked Plaintiff to sign a supervision plan that included substance-abuse testing for which Plaintiff would have to pay. Plaintiff refused to sign the plan because substance-abuse testing was not ordered by "the court" as part of his probation, Plaintiff does not have any history of substance abuse, and such a provision was not required under Washington law.

On January 10, 2012, "Oregon... received a violation report from Washington... describing Plaintiff's refusal to sign his offender supervision plan and refusal to comply with Washington's rules." Decl. of Dawn Persels at ¶ 3. WDOC recommended the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) "retake" Plaintiff "due to his failure to cooperate and his hostile and argumentative behavior." Persels Decl. at ¶ 3. On February 17, 2012, ODOC "retook" Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was arrested and held in ODOC custody for eight days.

Plaintiff alleges the "State Court in Hood River County invalidated the arrest and confinement from the Interstate Compact on" April 26, 2012. Nevertheless, ODOC has "refused to continue Plaintiff's supervision in Washington State."

On January 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint in this Court in which he alleged ODOC violated ICAOS when Plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated for refusing to sign the supervision plan in Washington.

On January 24, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint on the grounds that (1) ODOC is immune from actions for damages in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity; (2) Plaintiff failed to allege the legality of his confinement had been invalidated or otherwise set aside, and, therefore, his claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 641 (1997); and (3) ICAOS does not create a private right of action, and, therefore, Plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.