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

 In determining whether this action should be allowed to proceed under the bar order, this Court

is not called on to review the merits, if any, of plaintiff’s allegations. This Court does note, however, that

plaintiff’s claims in this case appear spurious. 

If the trial court ultimately finds the filings in this case are frivolous or harassing, this Court will

consider issuing another vexatious litigant order under the All Writs Act, 28 USC § 1651(a), including

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER PERMITTING CASE TO PROCEED

)

JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION; )

STEVEN SCOTT; TERRENCE A. )

CARROLL; and DAVID HACKETT, )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

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 August 22, 2006, the

Clerk of Court received a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a consent for payment of costs, a

complaint, and a declaration signed by plaintiff. See Dkt. #89. These are now before the

undersigned for review pursuant to the terms of the bar order.1

 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 99 Filed 10/24/06 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

appropriate sanctions. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999)

(“District courts have the inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants

with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation.”); see also DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-

49 (9th Cir. 1990) (outlining guidelines for entry of a vexatious litigant order).

ORDER -2-

Although no relief is requested in the proposed complaint, plaintiff asserts a § 1983 claim

against: the Honorable Steve Scott (ret.), a panelist for Judicial Dispute Resolution, LLC and a

special discovery master in a state court proceeding against plaintiff; the Honorable Terrence A.

Carroll (ret.), a panelist for Judicial Dispute Resolution, LLC; and David Hackett, a King

County deputy prosecuting attorney in a state court proceeding against plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges

that Judge Scott (ret.) denied plaintiff meaningful and effective court access by not issuing

subpoenas and denying or failing to rule on discovery motions. See Dkt. #89 at 4-5. Plaintiff

alleges that Judge Carroll (ret.) was aware of these alleged actions against plaintiff, but failed to

act, “thereby joining the conspiracy to deprive” plaintiff of effective and meaningful court

access. See id. at 6-7. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Hackett refused to schedule depositions thereby

denying plaintiff effective and meaningful court access. See id. at 7. 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 plaintiff. See id. (Affidavit of R.R. Scott). 

The undersigned finds that the issues raised in the above-captioned matter have not been

previously litigated by plaintiff 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 August 22, 2006, submission (Dkt. # 89).

DATED this 23rd day of October, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 99 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2