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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

AL NERIO et. al.,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5340RJB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

NOTED FOR:

July 6, 2007 

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. Before the court are four motions filed by plaintiff. Plaintiff filed these motions

between May 22, 2007 and June 12, 2007. There are three motions for temporary restraining orders,

(Dkt. # 168, 189, and 195). There is also a motion for Summary Judgment as a result of an alleged

“discovery violation.” (Dkt # 196). Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment which is

noted to be heard on June 22, 2007. That motion is not ripe for review at this time, as plaintiff still

has time to file a response. No response is needed to Mr. Scott’s motions as the motions are

repetitive and beyond the scope of this litigation. 

FACTS

Plaintiff is a non-committed resident at the Special Commitment Center, SCC. He is awaiting

trial on his civil commitment case. In plaintiff’s first motion for a TRO he alleges there is only one

telephone in his unit, and the lack of working phones is hindering his access to his three attorneys

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 206 Filed 06/18/07 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 - 2

and his investigators in his civil commitment case (Dkt. # 168). Those issues have nothing to do

with the allegations in this action. This action addresses the validity of an April 6, 2006 disciplinary

hearing. See, Order from Judge Lasnik allowing this action to proceed as to the April 6, 2006

hearing (Dkt # 2).

In Mr. Scott’s second motion he alleges he cannot receive free copies (Dkt. # 189). This

motion is duplicative of prior motions for Temporary Restraining Orders filed in this case, (Dkt. # 16

and 18). The motion is a violation of the sanctions order entered against Mr. Scott in other cases

which prohibit repetitive motions. See, (Scott v Lehman, 4-5521FDB (Dkt. # 80, page 4, ¶6)).

Mr. Scott’s third motion alleges he has been locked out of his work station (Dkt. # 195). Mr.

Scott argues that without “evidence” he cannot proceed in this case. Mr. Scott fails to articulate

what evidence he needs or what evidence has been taken from him. Between May 22, 2007 and June

12, 2007, Mr. Scott has filed no less that 21 separate documents with this court, an average of one

filing per day.

Finally, Mr. Scott seeks summary judgment because he alleges he is being denied access to

his discovery, and his computer work station. In addition, he again challenges his inability to get free

copies (Dkt. # 196). 

STANDARD

The basic function of injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo ante litem pending a

determination of the action on the merits. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com'n v. National

Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). A party seeking injunctive relief must fulfill

one of two standards, the "traditional" or the "alternative." Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 795

(9th Cir. 1987). 

Under the traditional standard, a court may issue preliminary relief if it finds that (1) the

moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is denied; (2) the moving party will

probably prevail on the merits; (3) the balance of potential harm favors the moving party; and

(4) the public interest favors granting relief. . . . Under the alternative standard, the moving

party may meet its burden by demonstrating either (1) a combination of probable success and

the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of

hardships tips sharply in its favor. 

Id. (citations omitted).

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 206 Filed 06/18/07 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 - 3

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff fails to show any irreparable injury with his first motion (Dkt. # 168). Plaintiff

alleges he needs more phone access with his three attorneys and investigators, but, he is proceeding

pro se in this action and fails to show any injury warranting court intervention.

In his second motion he again challenges lack of free copies (Dkt. # 189). Plaintiff fails to

show he cannot respond to pleadings Plaintiff fails to articulate with any specificity what materials

need to be copied and placed before this court. Plaintiff has again failed to show injury.

In his third motion plaintiff alleges he has been locked out of his work station (Dkt. # 195). 

Plaintiff fails to articulate what is on the storage disks of that station. Plaintiff has demonstrated an

ability to file pleadings and has pen and paper or pencil and paper. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to show

injury as no specific information is placed before the court.

Plaintiff’s final motion is simply improper (Dkt. # 196). Summary Judgment is not available

for a “discovery dispute,” absent a refusal to comply with a previously entered court order. There is

no indication of such a refusal in this case. See, Fed. Rule Civil Procedure 37 (b)(2)(A through E).

Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining and summary judgment should be DENIED. 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. 

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 6, 2007 as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 18 day of June, 2007.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 206 Filed 06/18/07 Page 3 of 3