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

 On May 12, 2006, the undersigned received in the mail a handwritten motion requesting a thirty

day stay of all of plaintiff’s cases because he had been moved to the King County Jail and apparently

lacked the supplies and resources necessary to litigate his actions. As noted in a prior order, plaintiff

must file motions and other requests for affirmative relief with the Clerk of Court: “papers submitted

directly to the undersigned’s chambers do not become part of the official court record and will not be

considered or ruled upon.” Order dated 4/17/06 (MS05-5029 Dkt. # 55). Nevertheless, the

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER PERMITTING CASE TO PROCEED

)

AL NERO, et al., )

)

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

April 11, 2006, the Clerk of Court received a proposed complaint, a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, a written consent for payment of costs, and a declaration signed by Mr. Scott. As

directed in the bar order, the Clerk forwarded the documents to the undersigned for review.1

 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 67 Filed 06/20/06 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 undersigned postponed consideration of the matters pending in MC05-5029 as requested by

plaintiff.

ORDER -2-

Plaintiff’s proposed complaint asserts constitutional and other claims against

individuals who participated in a disciplinary hearing on April 6, 2006. Plaintiff asserts that

there was no evidence to support the alleged violation of Policy 235, that defendant Alan

McLaughlin improperly influenced the proceedings, and that the punishments assessed (a bar

from use of intra-institutional mail, the deprivation of free legal copies, the confiscation of

plaintiff’s computer, and isolated confinement) infringe his First Amendment rights and access

to the courts. Pursuant to his declaration, plaintiff is not seeking to litigate claims arising before

April 6, 2006, and has not raised these claims in a prior suit. 

Although plaintiff has already filed two complaints regarding the confiscation of

his computer and his isolated confinement (see MC05-5029 at Dkt. # 43 (now C06-5173) and

Dkt. # 50), the Court will accept at face value plaintiff’s representation that this complaint

involves only the adverse consequences of the April 6, 2006, disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff will

not be permitted to litigate prior events, such as the confiscation of his computer in February and

March 2006, in the context of this action. The Court finds that the issues raised in the April 11,

2006, proposed complaint (Dkt. # 52), as limited herein, 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 April 11,

2006, submission. 

DATED this 20th day of June, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

Chief Judge, United States District Court 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 67 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 2