Waters v. Social and Health Services Department Child Support Division of Washington State et al, No. 2:2006cv00976 - Document 47 (W.D. Wash. 2007)
Court Description: ORDER granting 42 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MJPExtern3) Modified on 8/16/2007 -mailed copy of order to Frank Glenn Waters (MD, ).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Waters v. Social and Health Services Department Child Support Division of Washington State et al Case 2:06-cv-00976-MJP Document 47 Filed 08/15/2007 Doc. 47 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 FRANK GLENN WATERS, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 13 NO. C06-0976MJP v. SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES DEPT, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION OF WASHINGTON STATE et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. 14 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Hannes’ Motion for Summary Judgment 17 (Dkt. No. 42). Plaintiff has responded. (Dkt. No. 45.) Having reviewed the motions and response, 18 Defendant’s reply (Dkt. No. 46), all documents submitted in support thereof and the record herein, the 19 Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 20 21 Background On August 31, 2006, Plaintiff Frank Waters filed suit against the Washington State 22 Department of Social and Health Services, Division of Child Support (“DCS”), the Society of Council 23 Representing Accused Persons (“SCRAP”), and several employees of both organizations. These 24 included Laurie Sanchez, Brian Frye, Philip Kouse, and Rich Hannes from DCS, and Martin Powell, 25 26 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:06-cv-00976-MJP Document 47 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 2 of 7 1 Kara Dansky, and Annette Cook from SCRAP. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants had violated his 2 federal civil rights, and he brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. He sued all the 3 employees both as individuals and as employees of their respective agencies. On November 9, 2006, 4 Mr. Waters voluntarily dismissed Philip Kouse, Kara Dansky, and Annette Cook as defendants. (Dkt. 5 No. 22.) On February 6, 2007, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants SCRAP and 6 Martin Powell, holding that Plaintiff’s claims against them were barred by the applicable statute of 7 limitations. (Dkt. No. 38.) The Court also dismissed sua sponte all of Plaintiff’s claims against DCS, 8 Laurie Sanchez, and Brian Frye, for the same reason. Rick Hannes is the only remaining defendant. 9 Mr. Waters’ contact with Mr. Hannes began when Mr. Waters voluntarily requested a 10 “Conference Board” hearing before DCS in June 2005 regarding custody and child support issues. A 11 Conference Board is an informal hearing conducted by a DCS employee as a dispute resolution 12 method. The Conference Board can either issue a decision without a hearing or set a hearing to take 13 statements before issuing a decision. WAC 388-14A-6400(1)(b). The Conference Board process is 14 used to: “(a) Help resolve complaints and problems over agency actions; (b) Determine when hardship 15 in the paying parent’s household . . . justifies the release of collection action . . . ; (c) Set a repayment 16 rate on a support debt; and (d) Determine when it is appropriate to write off support debts owed to 17 the department . . .” WAC 388-14A-6400(3). 18 In his request for a Conference Board, Mr. Waters claimed that (1) the matters should have 19 been resolved in 1997, (2) his ex-wife kidnapped their son, causing him to experience extreme mental 20 distress, and (3) DCS’ efforts to collect the child support he owes is aiding and abetting his ex-wife in 21 her alleged crime. (Dkt. No. 43, Ex. 1.) He requested cancellation of his debt, reinstatement of his 22 driver’s license (which had been revoked for non-payment of child support), and compensation for 23 pain and suffering. (Dkt. No. 43, Ex. 1.) Mr. Hannes oversaw the Conference Board process. He did 24 not set a hearing, but based his decision on the letter from Mr. Waters. Mr. Hannes’ decision, dated 25 26 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 2 Case 2:06-cv-00976-MJP Document 47 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 3 of 7 1 August 11, 2005, acknowledged that Mr. Waters objected to paying child support because of his loss 2 of contact with his child, and stated that “the kind of issue that is raised is not one about which relief is 3 available through the conference board process.” (Dkt. No. 43, Ex. 3.) He indicated that Mr. Waters 4 was still obligated to make child support payments when possible. Id. Mr. Waters was not satisfied 5 with this response, and brought this suit, alleging claims against Mr. Hannes solely on the basis that 6 Mr. Hannes ignored his complaints and “made his own judgments without having all the facts.” (Dkt. 7 No. 5 at 4). On October 3, 2006, DCS released all of the liens placed on Mr. Waters and restored his 8 driver’s license. Mr. Waters no longer owes any money to DCS. 9 10 11 Analysis I. Standard Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the 12 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The burden is initially 13 on the moving party to show no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 14 323 (1986). If the moving party succeeds, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that there 15 is a genuine issue of material fact. The facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing 16 party. Matsushita Elect. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The court 17 must evaluate the evidence in light of evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at trial. Anderson 18 v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). 19 II. Timeliness 20 Plaintiff filed his response to Defendant’s summary judgment motion three days late. Local 21 Civil Rule 7(d) requires opposition papers to a dispositive motion to be filed and served by the 22 Monday before the Friday noting date. The noting date here was Friday, June 29, 2007. Plaintiff’s 23 response was therefore due by June 25, 2007, but was not filed until June 28, 2007. Pro se litigants 24 are bound by the rules of procedure. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). However, the 25 26 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 3 Case 2:06-cv-00976-MJP Document 47 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 4 of 7 1 Ninth Circuit has noted that it is appropriate to use great leniency when evaluating a pro se litigant’s 2 compliance with technical rules of civil procedure. Draper v. Combs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 3 1986). The Court considers Defendant’s motion on its merits, and will consider Plaintiff’s response. 4 III. Section 1983 Claim 5 Defendant argues that Mr. Waters has not plead, nor can he establish, a federal constitutional 6 violation by Mr. Hannes. To succeed on his § 1983 claim, Mr. Waters must show that he was 7 deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law, and that the action proximately causing 8 the deprivation was taken by a “person” acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 9 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). State employees sued in their individual capacities qualify as “persons” 10 for the purposes of the statute. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). Besides showing a deprivation 11 of a federal right, the claimant must also show that the official’s act was the proximate cause of that 12 deprivation. See Crumpton, 947 F.2d at 1420; Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d. 1070, 1077 (2007). A 13 person acts under color of law when he or she takes any action in the course of his or her public 14 duties, even those not sanctioned by official law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49-50 (1988). 15 Although Plaintiff has not specified which federal right he was deprived of by Defendant, there 16 are several constitutional rights that may be gleaned from his complaint. In his response, Plaintiff 17 accuses Defendant of making a Conference Board judgment based on inadequate facts, thereby 18 causing Plaintiff emotional distress. This claim could be interpreted to contain a due process 19 allegation, namely that Mr. Hannes’ Conference Board decision was reached without due process of 20 law. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects deprivations of life, liberty or 21 property by the government without due process of law. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 22 570-71 (1972). 23 Mr. Hannes oversaw a non-binding, informal dispute resolution process. The entire process 24 consisted of an exchange of letters between him and Mr. Waters. Washington’s administrative code 25 26 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 4 Case 2:06-cv-00976-MJP Document 47 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 5 of 7 1 gives DCS employees the discretion to use the conference board process to determine “hardship” on 2 the part of the debtor parent, as defined by RCW 74.20A.160. See WAC 388-14A-6400(3)(b). The 3 statute defines hardship as issues related to “income, earning capacity and resources of the debtor.” 4 RCW 74.20A.160. Mr. Hannes did not violate Mr. Waters’ due process rights when he concluded 5 that “the kind of issue that is raised is not one about which relief is available through the conference 6 board process.” (Dkt. No. 43, Ex. 3.) As stated above, his authority was limited to a determination of 7 financial hardship. This determination did not deprive Mr. Waters of any property or liberty interests, 8 or any interest at all. Mr. Hannes merely concluded that Mr. Waters was not eligible for an alternate 9 payment plan or reduction in debt. He had no control over the enforcement of the child support 10 11 payments, which were ordered by a Washington state court. Mr. Waters also claims that Mr. Hannes is complicit in a federal kidnapping crime. There is no 12 basis for this claim. Plaintiff’s complaint never alleges that Mr. Hannes had any contact with Mr. 13 Waters’ ex-wife, or that he was involved in the collection or enforcement of child support payments. 14 And Plaintiff offers no evidence in response to the motion for summary judgment supporting this 15 claim. Even considering the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Waters, he has not alleged a 16 constitutional violation by Mr. Hannes regarding a kidnapping scheme. 17 Finally, Mr. Waters appears to be claiming that the DCS employee’s failure to take the 18 kidnapping claim seriously was a result of gender discrimination. He cites no facts or evidence to 19 support this Equal Protection claim. He only states that the system in general was biased against him, 20 and that he would have been treated differently had he been the child’s mother, rather than his father. 21 Mr. Waters cannot base a § 1983 claim on conjecture and speculation that he was a victim of sex 22 discrimination. In conclusion, Plaintiff has failed to establish any question about the legality of 23 Defendant’s actions, and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the § 1983 claim. 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 5 Case 2:06-cv-00976-MJP 1 Document 47 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 6 of 7 IV. Qualified Immunity 2 Officials charged with enforcing presumably constitutional state laws are entitled to qualified 3 immunity if it was reasonable for them to assume that they were acting legally and they acted in good 4 faith. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815 (1982). A court ruling upon qualified immunity in a 5 summary judgment motion must first determine whether the facts alleged, viewed in the light most 6 favorable to the nonmoving party, show a violation of a federal right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 7 201 (2001). If this threshold question is satisfied, the next step is to determine whether the right was 8 clearly established, such that the official was put on notice that conduct violating the right would be 9 unlawful. Id. A finding of qualified immunity protects the official from having to face litigation. Id. at 10 200. 11 As discussed above, the allegations made by Mr. Waters do not show any violation of a federal 12 right by Mr. Hannes. He acted in accordance with the regulations of the conference board process, 13 and it was reasonable for him to believe that by doing so, he was not violating federal law or depriving 14 Mr. Waters of his constitutional rights. Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.1 15 V. Section 1985 and 1986 Claims 16 Plaintiff also brought claims against Defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, which prohibits certain 17 conspiracies to interfere with civil rights, and 42 U.S.C. § 1986, which creates a cause of action for 18 neglecting to prevent a conspiracy of the type covered by § 1985. Section (1) of § 1985 prohibits any 19 conspiracy to prevent a federal officer from performing official duties. Section (2) prohibits 20 conspiracies to obstruct justice, either by interfering with the judicial process or preventing equal 21 protection of the law. Section (3) creates a cause of action against a party “conspiring to deprive any 22 person of equal protection of the law or the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” Plaintiff has not 23 24 25 26 1 Because the Court grants qualified immunity, it need not consider Mr. Hannes’ alternative argument that he is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 6 Case 2:06-cv-00976-MJP Document 47 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 7 of 7 1 provided any evidence indicating that Defendant conspired with anyone to interfere with his civil 2 rights. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff’s § 1985 and § 1986 claims is 3 GRANTED. 4 Conclusion 5 Mr. Hannes is entitled to qualified immunity from Mr. Waters’ claims. In addition, Mr. 6 Waters has failed to produce any evidence or legal support for his civil rights claims. Because he has 7 not stated a viable claim against Mr. Hannes, the Court GRANTS summary judgment on behalf of 8 Defendant. 9 10 The clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to all counsel of record. Dated: August 15, 2007 11 /s Marsha J. Pechman 12 Marsha J. Pechman 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
