Wing v. Lewis County
3:19-cv-05033
| W.D. Wash. | Jul 3, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Danny A. Wing, Sr. filed a § 1983 action alleging Lewis County jail recorded and listened to his jail telephone calls with family, friends, and civil attorneys while incarcerated; he previously filed a separate suit about recorded calls with his criminal defense attorneys.
- The prior action challenged recordings of calls with criminal defense counsel; the court dismissed some claims (First Amendment, Sixth Amendment without prejudice under Heck, and substantive due process) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- This second suit (filed Jan 11, 2019) asserts a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim based on a state-created liberty interest and a Washington privacy-act claim; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Defendants argued res judicata/issue preclusion, statute of limitations, qualified immunity for individual defendants, lack of municipal liability, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Court held most claims time-barred (pre-Jan 11, 2016) and found no genuine dispute that as a post-conviction prisoner Wing lacked a Sandin-based liberty interest in unmonitored phone calls; thus no Fourteenth Amendment violation and qualified immunity analysis ended.
- Court recommended granting summary judgment on all federal claims (dismissed with prejudice), declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state privacy-act claim (dismissed without prejudice), and denying Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) discovery request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata | New suit involves different calls (family/friends/civil attorneys) so claims are distinct | Claims arise from same nucleus of facts and could have been raised earlier | Not barred: earlier dismissal on some claims was not an adjudication on the merits, so res judicata fails |
| Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) | (Not meaningfully addressed) | Prior litigation resolved issues that preclude relitigation | Not barred: procedural-due-process issue was not actually litigated or decided in prior case |
| Statute of limitations / tolling | Calls may have been re-monitored/recorded within the limitations period; seeks discovery and statutory tolling | Most calls occurred before Jan 11, 2016; R.C.W. tolling cited by plaintiff not applicable to § 1983; re-recording would create new claims | Claims arising before Jan 11, 2016 are time-barred; plaintiff failed to show entitlement to tolling; remaining claims limited to post-2016 dates |
| Procedural due process / qualified immunity / municipal liability | Custodial Care Standards created state liberty interest in unmonitored calls; factual disputes require discovery | As a post-conviction prisoner, Sandin governs and recording calls is not an "atypical and significant" hardship; therefore no constitutional violation; municipal liability requires a constitutional deprivation | Held for defendants: no state-created liberty interest in private calls for post-conviction prisoner, so no due process violation; qualified immunity analysis ends; Monell claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (favorable-termination rule bars § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty-interest test: atypical and significant hardship relative to ordinary prison life)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework: whether constitutional right was violated and whether right was clearly established)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (qualified immunity protects officials unless they violate clearly established law)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must present significant probative evidence to defeat summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute of material fact standard for summary judgment)
- Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (res judicata elements and transactional test)
- Tahoe–Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2003) (claims arising from same nucleus of facts may be precluded if could have been raised earlier)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (dismissal without prejudice is not an adjudication on the merits)
- Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (due process standards for pretrial detainees and related analysis)
- United States v. Van Poyck, 77 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1996) (prisoners have severely curtailed privacy expectations in outbound calls)