William Fletcher v. Idaho Department of Correction

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM JERMAINE FLETCHER, No. 21-35128
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00267-BLW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION; IDAHO COMMISSION
OF PARDONS AND PAROLE; SANDY
JONES; KAREN CLIFFORD,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 11, 2023
Seattle, Washington
Before: BYBEE and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,** District Judge.
William Fletcher appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his
claims for damages against Karen Clifford, a Deputy manager of the Idaho
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Department of Correction (IDOC), and Sandy Jones, the Executive Director of the
Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole (ICPP), alleging that his due process rights
were violated when he was classified and subjected to supervision and treatment as
a sex offender. Fletcher also appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
for those same defendants on his claim for injunctive relief. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847
F.3d 657, 665 (9th Cir. 2017), we affirm.
1. Injunctive relief claims. “[T]he stigmatizing consequences of the
attachment of the ‘sex offender’ label coupled with the subjection of [a] targeted
inmate to a mandatory treatment program . . . create the kind of deprivations of
liberty that require procedural protections.” Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 830 (9th
Cir. 1997). In other words, before a state classifies an individual as a sex offender
and subjects him to sex-offender treatment, the individual must be provided due
process. Id. at 829–31.
Fletcher pleaded guilty to felony injury to a child, which is not a sex offense.
See Idaho Code §§ 18-501, 18-8304. However, Fletcher’s amended information
detailed the sexual nature of his conduct underlying the charge, and he pleaded guilty
to the offense as alleged in the amended information.1 Additionally, under the terms
1
Defendants’ request for judicial notice, D.E. 55, is GRANTED. See Bennet
v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). However, that judicial
2
of his plea agreement, Fletcher agreed to submit to a psychosexual evaluation and
be amenable to treatment. Thus, his actions during the plea proceedings undermine
any argument that he did not receive the process that he was due. By knowingly and
explicitly accepting evaluation and treatment, Fletcher also accepted the attendant
stigma associated with that evaluation and treatment and affirmatively waived any
further procedural protections required under Neal. See United States v. Navarro-
Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[I]t is not a due process violation for a
defendant to waive constitutional rights as part of a plea bargain . . . .”).
Accordingly, because the record establishes that Fletcher cannot show he was denied
due process, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
Clifford and Jones on this ground.
2. Damages claims.2 The district court dismissed Fletcher’s damages
claims against Clifford and Jones with prejudice because they were asserted against
these defendants in their official capacity. See Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Fish &
Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[A] claim for damages against
state officials in their official capacities is plainly barred.”). Pro se plaintiffs are
entitled to a liberal reading of their complaint, notice of any perceived pleading
notice of these documents was not requested until the eve of oral argument was of
great disservice to the court. We caution counsel to provide such judicially
noticeable documents in a timely manner in the future.
2
Fletcher does not challenge the dismissal of his claims against the IDOC or
ICPP, only against the individual officials identified herein, Clifford and Jones.
3
defects, and an opportunity to amend unless it is clear that amendment would be
futile. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). While the district court
failed to instruct Fletcher about his pleading deficiencies and grant him leave to
amend, we conclude that this was not reversible error. Any amendment would be
futile given our conclusion that the terms of Fletcher’s plea agreement fatally
undermine his asserted due-process violation. See Parents for Privacy v. Barr, 949
F.3d 1210, 1221 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that a dismissal with prejudice is proper
where it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by
amendment).
AFFIRMED.
4