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

 Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address dated May 10, 2006, and requested a forty-five day

stay of all of his cases because he had been moved to the King County Jail and apparently lacked the

resources necessary to pursue this litigation. The undersigned has therefore postponed consideration

of the matters pending in MC05-5029.

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO PROVIDE

) COPIES

STATE OF WASHINGTON, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court on Richard Roy Scott’s “Request for

Clarification and Copy of Complaint.” Dkt. # 60. Plaintiff asserts that he cannot understand

and/or comply with the Court’s order (Dkt. # 55) to file a signed and dated declaration under

penalty of perjury because defendants have confiscated his computer, typewriter, and all copies

of his litigation files.1

 

This is the second motion for clarification plaintiff has filed regarding the

proposed complaint submitted on January 19, 2006 (Dkt. # 19). The affidavit provided with that

complaint was defective in that it was not verified “under penalty of perjury.” On February 7,

2006, the Court directed plaintiff to correct the deficiency. Dkt. # 21. Plaintiff was confused by

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 69 Filed 06/26/06 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

ORDER -2-

the order and sought clarification via a letter mailed directly to the undersigned. On April 17,

2006, the Court extended the time in which plaintiff could remedy the deficiencies in his

January 19, 2006, filing, and again directed plaintiff to declare, under penalty of perjury, that

none of the issues raised in the proposed complaint had been litigated in the past. Dkt. # 55. 

Pursuant to the governing bar order, unless and until a proposed complaint and the

required affidavit are reviewed and approved by the undersigned, the new case will not be

permitted to proceed. Plaintiff has already been given two opportunities (and over four months)

to provide a statement, under penalty of perjury, that the issues raised in the January 19, 2006,

proposed complaint were not previously litigated by plaintiff. Although defendant’s

confiscation of plaintiff’s computer for four days in February and again in March does not

excuse plaintiff’s failure to provide an adequate affidavit to that effect, the Court will again

continue the time period in which plaintiff may remedy the deficiencies identified in its prior

orders.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail to plaintiff a copy of Dkt. # 19, 20, 21, and

55. Plaintiff shall have until July 12, 2006, to file a revised declaration, signed and dated, with

the language “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” As

stated in an order entered on March 28, 2006 (Dkt. # 38), the signature under penalty of perjury

and the date on which it is signed must be appended to the factual statements to which plaintiff

will be bound, namely that the condition barring plaintiff from accessing the internet once he has

been released from the Special Commitment Center (“SCC”) and the way in which his

community custody time has been calculated have not been previously litigated by plaintiff. 

Failure to file a proper declaration in compliance with the Court’s orders by July 12, 2006, will

result in the rejection of plaintiff’s January 19, 2006, proposed complaint (Dkt. # 19). The Clerk

of Court shall docket this order in MC05-5029. Neither the Clerk of Court nor defendants need

take any other action with regards to the January 19, 2006, proposed complaint unless and until

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 69 Filed 06/26/06 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

ORDER -3-

further ordered by the Court.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik,

Chief Judge, United States District Court 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 69 Filed 06/26/06 Page 3 of 3