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

27

28 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JON ROYAL FLEMING,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN QUINN,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5719RJB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING MOTIONS AND

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

The Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge J.

Kelley Arnold, petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 62, 75, and 83),

respondent’s responses, and the remaining record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) In accord with the Report and Recommendation, petitioner’s motions for injunctive

relief (Dkt. 41, 45, and 47) are DENIED.

(2) Petitioner’s motion to amend/add supplemental pleadings (Dkt. 60), motion for leave

to withdraw documents 41 and 45 (Dkt. 64), and motion for leave to motion (Dkt.

66) are without merit and are accordingly DENIED.

(3) Petitioner’s appeals from the orders of the magistrate judge order (Dkt. 65 and 67)

are without merit. The orders of the magistrate judge are AFFIRMED. 

(4) Petitioner’s motion for a lesser standard in pleadings, content and length (Dkt. 74) is

unnecessary and is STRICKEN. 

(5) Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file traverse (Dkt. 63) is DENIED, as

petitioner filed a traverse on May 24, 2006, and this motion is an attempt to add an

additional legal claim and legal basis that was not exhausted in state court and is not

cognizable in a habeas corpus petition.

Case 3:05-cv-05719-RJB Document 84 Filed 08/14/06 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

27

28 ORDER - 2

(6) To the extent that Petitioner’s Objection/Appeal to Order Denying Petitioners [sic]

Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 77) and Petitioner’s Objection/Appeal to 2nd

Order Denying Petitioners [sic] Motion for Time Extension (Dkt. 81) are intended to

be motions for reconsideration, those motions are without merit and are DENIED. 

To the extent that Dkt. 77 and 81 were intended to be appeals of the orders of this

court to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the Clerk is directed to process

these documents (Dkt. 77 and 81) as appeals.

(7) Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 81, at 4) is DENIED because

petitioner has not shown either likelihood of success on the merits or lack of the

ability to articulate the claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved. 

(8) The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 54) is ADOPTED. The petition is

DENIED in accord with the well reasoned Report and Recommendation. This case is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

(9) In the event that petitioner files an appeal of the decision(s) of this court, a Certificate

of Appealability is DENIED because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). 

(10) The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to Petitioner, counsel for

Respondent, and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 14th day of August, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05719-RJB Document 84 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 2