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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

THOMAS PAUL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5289RBL

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

NOTED FOR:

July 8th, 2005 

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights 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. After reviewing the complaint in this action the undersigned recommends

that the action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE prior to service and any pending

motions be DENIED. 

This action is one in a series of legal actions regarding the Special Commitment Center

(SCC). Plaintiff challenges nearly every aspect of his confinement conditions from visits and

phone use to computer access. The complaint implicates the treatment environment at the SCC. 

The complaint is a 36 page form complaint.

The plaintiffs in these actions are all persons confined at the SCC for mental health

treatment or persons awaiting commitment proceedings. The SCC is designed to treat persons

Case 3:05-cv-05289-RBL Document 7 Filed 06/10/05 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

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

whose mental abnormalities or personality disorders make them likely to engage in predatory acts

of sexual violence. 

For over a decade the SCC has operated under federal oversight as a result of injunctions

issued by the Western District Federal Court in Seattle. The court found the conditions of

confinement in 1991 to be unconstitutional and found the mental health treatment offered at that

time to be inadequate. Turay v. Seling, C91-0664RSM. In the subsequent decade the court

addressed the treatment environment in great detail. Federal oversight continues in a limited

capacity to this day. There have been high and low points during the years of oversight including

findings of contempt, and findings that portions of the injunction had been fulfilled. On June 19th,

2004 the court found the defendants in substantial compliance and lifted the injunctions with one

exception. Turay v. Seling, C91-0664RSM (Dkt # 1906). 

Despite indicating portions of the injunction were dissolved the court indicated that

judicial oversight continues to insure there is no “backsliding”. Turay v. Seling, C91-0664RSM

(Dkt # 1906). The case is currently stayed.

All of the issues plaintiff is attempting to raise in this litigation were raised or could have

been raised in the compliance proceedings in Turay. Indeed, the new facility which is the focus of

this litigation was constructed because of findings made in the Turay case. 

The new facility was constructed to comply with the courts findings and orders and was

constructed at a time when the operation of the SCC was under judicial oversight. For this court

to consider a case which calls into question the operating procedures while another court is

monitoring the operating conditions will undoubtedly result in a duplication of effort and a waste

of judicial resources. It is ill advised for this court to consider matters that are under the control

of another judge. 

In forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed before service under 29 U.S.C. § 1915

(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Leave to amend is not necessary where it is

clear that the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.

Here, the deficiency is the attempt to bring a separate action while judicial oversight

Case 3:05-cv-05289-RBL Document 7 Filed 06/10/05 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

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 3

of the facility is before another District Court Judge. The court is aware of a recent

unpublished decision by the 9thCircuit in Scott v. Seling, C03-5398RBL; (9th Cir. No. 4-35101). 

The court does not believe amendment to be proper as the defect in the case is not failure to state

a claim. The defect is the attempt to open multiple actions challenging the treatment environment

while that environment is being monitored by another District Court. This action should be

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A proposed order accompanies this report and

recommendation. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure,

the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes

of appeal. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule

72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on July 8th, 2005, as noted in the

caption. 

DATED this 10th day of June, 2005.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

 

Case 3:05-cv-05289-RBL Document 7 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 3