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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER

)

WILL BAILEY, )

)

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 March 13, 2007, the

Clerk of Court received a complaint, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a written consent

for payment of costs, a praecipe, and a declaration from Mr. Scott. These documents were

posted in MC05-5029 at Dkt. #106. As directed in the bar order, the Clerk forwarded the

documents to the undersigned for review. 

In the required declaration, plaintiff asserts that “I have not filed this complaint before,”

but also states that “this complaint only refers to event[s] that occured [sic] after I file[d] Scott v.

Bailey C06-5173 Amendment [sic].” See MC05-5029 at Dkt. #106 (Declaration of Plaintiff). 

In the complaint, plaintiff seeks relief for “retaliation” by Will Bailey for events that appear to

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 109 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 3
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-

have occurred between April 2006 and July 2006 after plaintiff filed his first complaint against

Mr. Bailey in March 2006. See Dkt. #106 (“Complaint Under 1983 Pendant State Claims”) at

¶¶3, 6, 7; Dkt. #1 in Case No. C06-5173RBL.

In his complaint in Scott v. Bailey (Case No. C06-5173RBL), plaintiff also appeared to

be seeking relief for retaliation by Mr. Bailey. See Dkt. #39 at 2. In this prior action, on

September 8, 2006, plaintiff was granted leave until October 30, 3006 “to file an amended

complaint that will act as a complete substitute for the original [complaint]” to support “the basis

of a retaliation claim.” See Dkt. #39 in C06-5173RBL at 2 (Report and Recommendation); Dkt.

#44 in C06-5173RBL (Order Adopting Report and Recommendation). This deadline was

extended until December 1, 2006, and the case was stayed until a proper amended complaint

was filed. See Dkt #59 in C06-5173RBL at 2. On February 22, 2007, the C06-5187RBL action

was dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders

because: “plaintiff has failed to properly amend his complaint despite being given over 90 days

from the time of the Report and Recommendation to amend (Dkt. #39), and nearly 90 days from

the Order adopting that Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #33).” See Dkt. #69 (Order

Adopting Report and Recommendation) in C06-5173RBL.

Based on this history, plaintiff was given until December 1, 2006 to properly amend his

complaint against Mr. Bailey for retaliation, but failed to do so. The allegations that plaintiff

raises in his proposed new action against Mr. Bailey relate to events that occurred between April

and July 2006. Accordingly, had plaintiff properly amended his complaint in the C06-5173RBL

action, plaintiff could have incorporated the allegations in his new proposed complaint in the

previous action styled Scott v. Bailey. Therefore, plaintiff’s statement in his declaration that

“this complaint only refers to event[s] that occur[r]ed after I file[d] [the] Scott v. Bailey C06-

5173 Amendment” is false because plaintiff never properly attempted to amended his complaint

to include these allegations. For this reason, plaintiff’s new action shall not be allowed to

proceed.

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 109 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 3
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 -3-

Additionally, on March 26, 2007, this Court entered an order barring plaintiff from

proceeding in forma pauperis in any future action in the United States District Court for the

Western District of Washington unless the Court determines he is in imminent danger of death

or serious injury. See Dkt. #95 in Scott v. Weinberg, et al. (Case No. C06-5172-FDB) (“Order

Adopting Report and Recommendation and Order Restricting Future In Forma Pauperis

Filings”) at 15. Upon review of the documents filed by plaintiff, the Court finds there is no

showing that plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

For all the foregoing reasons, the new action submitted on March 13, 2007 (Dkt. #106),

shall not be permitted to proceed. The Clerk of Court shall docket this order in MC05-5029. 

Neither the Clerk of Court nor defendants need take any further action with regards to this

matter. 

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 109 Filed 07/23/07 Page 3 of 3