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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER AKA

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE MYERS RECREATIONAL

COACH NORTHWEST DETENTION

CENTER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5680RBL

ORDER DECLINING TO

 CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR JOINDER OF

PARTIES, WARNING

PLAINTIFF REGARDING

FUTURE FILINGS, AND

STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

GENERAL DECLARATION.

This Bivens action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. 

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion asking the court to add several plaintiffs. (Dkt # 101, 102). The

court also addresses plaintiff filing a “general declaration.” (Dkt. # 108).

At the onset of this action several detainees filed motions asking for class certification and asking

they be added as plaintiffs in this action. (Dkt. # 4, 6, 7, 9). The court entered a Report and

Recommendation to deny class certification. (Dkt # 18). On April 12th, 2006 the District Court Judge

adopted that Report and Recommendation and denied the motion to certify a class. (Dkt. # 54).

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 114 Filed 09/27/06 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

Page - 2

Now, plaintiff has filed a 36 page motion signed by six detainees not including Mr. Hopper AKA

Marks. (101). Plaintiff specifically mentions rule 23 and addresses the prerequisites for filing a class

action. (Dkt. # 101, page 3). The plaintiff has also filed a multi hundred page declaration in support of the

motion. (Dkt. # 102). These filings are not the first over length filings from the plaintiff in this action.

This motion is a repetitive motion for class certification. Plaintiff’s motion and over length

declaration will not be considered on the merits. The court has already declined to certify a class in this

action. Further, no over length filings will be considered unless the party has sought and obtained leave of

court to file an over length pleading.

The filings in this action are becoming abusive. When class certification was denied at the

beginning of this action plaintiff could have moved for reconsideration. Plaintiff did not do so and in fact

filed a pleading indicating he concurred with the Report and Recommendation not to certify a class. (Dkt

# 21). A subsequent motion, this late in the case, is not well taken. Included in that motion is a request for

counsel. Plaintiff has already moved for appointment of counsel in this action and his motion was denied. 

(Dkt # 36, and 43).

Plaintiff has also filed a pleading which he titled a “general declaration” in which plaintiff indicates

what he may testify to in the future. (Dkt. # 108). This is not a proper filing or pleading and it will not be

considered by the court or cited to by any party. The pleading is not evidence and is at best a declaration as

to what may happen in the future. 

Plaintiff is hereby warned that this court will not tolerate filings which needlessly increase the cost

of litigation or are filed for an improper purpose. Further, the court will not allow over length filings that

are violations of the court’s local rules. Future pleadings that are improper may result in sanctions

including monetary sanctions, dismissal of actions, and limitation on plaintiff’s ability to proceed in forma

pauperis in this or future actions. The relief sought in documents 101 and 102 is DENIED.

The clerk’s office is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants. 

DATED this 27th day of September, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 114 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2