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

1

 Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address dated May 10, 2006, and requested a forty-five day

stay of all of his cases because he had been moved to the King County Jail and apparently lacked the

resources necessary to pursue this litigation. The undersigned has therefore postponed consideration

of the matters pending in MC05-5029.

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER PERMITTING CASE TO PROCEED

)

DAVID HACKETT, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 5, 2005, the United

States District Court judges who sit in Tacoma entered an order dismissing a number of

plaintiff’s causes of action and barring future litigation unless plaintiff provides a signed

affidavit, along with the proposed complaint, “verifying under penalty of perjury that none of the

issues raised in the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by the plaintiff.” On May

2, 2006, the Clerk of Court received a complaint, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a

written consent for payment of costs, a praecipe for service, and a declaration signed by Mr.

Scott. Dkt. # 63 and 64. These documents are now before the undersigned for review pursuant

to the terms of the bar order.1

 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 71 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER -2-

Although no relief is requested in the proposed complaint, plaintiff asserts a 

§ 1983 claim against defendant Hackett, setting forth in detail the role Hackett played in

plaintiff’s detention in Pacific County Jail and the Shelton Correction Center between May 16,

2003, and May 19, 2003. Pursuant to the terms of the “Order Adopting Report and

Recommendation,” dated April 5, 2005, plaintiff has submitted a signed declaration verifying

that none of the issues raised in the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by the

plaintiff. 

Upon review of plaintiff’s declaration and the record in Scott v. Sultemeier, C04-

5365RJB/KLS, it appears that plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his prior claims against Hackett

and the other defendants named in C04-5365RJB/KLS effective November 22, 2004, and

February 2, 2005. These dismissals preceded the entry of the April 5, 2005, bar order

purporting to dismiss the action with prejudice. Giving plaintiff every benefit of the ambiguities

created by the dismissal of C04-5365RJB/KLS before the Report and Recommendation was

written or adopted, the Court finds that the issues raised in the above-captioned matter have not

been finally resolved and may proceed subject to the other requirements imposed by the “Order

Adopting Report and Recommendation,” dated April 5, 2005. The Clerk of Court shall docket

this order in MC05-5029 and open a new cause of action containing all documents related to

plaintiff’s May 2, 2006, submission. 

DATED this 26th day of June, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik,

Chief Judge, United States District Court 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 71 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2