01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RONALD L. BASKETT,,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD L. CASTLEBERRY,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0576-RSL

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP

application”). The complaint names as sole defendant the Honorable Ronald L. Castleberry, a

judge on the Snohomish County Superior Court. While the precise nature of plaintiff’s complaint

is unclear, it appears from exhibits that plaintiff attaches to his complaint that he is challenging

actions taken by Judge Castleberry regarding plaintiff’s habeas petition in state court. (Proposed

Complaint, Ex. “BB”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court has reviewed the complaint and

IFP application, and, for the reasons stated below, the court recommends that plaintiff’s complaint

and this action be dismissed prior to service on defendant.

Case 2:06-cv-00576-RSL Document 6 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1

 The three cases are: Baskett v. Agar, Case No. C05-5743-FDB, Baskett v. Quinn, Case

No. C06-266-RSL, and Baskett v. King County, et al. Case No. C06-338-RSM.

2

 Section 1915(g) was enacted as part of the 1996 Amendments to the Prison Litigation

Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, § 804(d) (“PLRA”) and provides that:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal . . . under this section if the

prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (emphasis added).

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -2

First, although plaintiff’s IFP application shows that he is indigent, court records reveal

that plaintiff has had three cases dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.1

 The Orders dismissing these three cases explicitly designated the dismissals to count as

“strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under that provision of law, plaintiff’s IFP application is

barred, notwithstanding his indigency, unless plaintiff can show that he “is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).2 See also Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th

Cir. 2005). Neither plaintiff’s IFP application nor his complaint argue or show that he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. Accordingly, his IFP application should be denied.

Second, even if plaintiff were permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, his complaint here

could not proceed because the sole defendant is protected by judicial immunity. See Fry v.

Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 835-36 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 520

(1985). Accordingly, his complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Case 2:06-cv-00576-RSL Document 6 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -3

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s IFP application should be denied and this matter

dismissed. A proposed Order reflecting this recommendation is attached.

DATED this 12th day of May, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00576-RSL Document 6 Filed 05/12/06 Page 3 of 3