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 ORDER1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD STEVEN MITUNIEWICZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD CLARK et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5383RBL

ORDER TO AMEND THE

COMPLAINT AND DENYING

PENDING MOTIONS 

This action, filed under the Americans with a Disabilities Act has been referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff was given leave

to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff makes a number of complaints regarding the amount of good time he received, his

ability to complete his Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative, DOSA, sentence, and the award of

good time or earned time credits he received while in custody for violations of his DOSA. He also

complains of the Department of Corrections using something called an LSI-R. Plaintiff defines an

LSI-R as a Level of Service Inventory, but does not explain what that means. He complains because

it is prepared or made by a company in Ontario Canada. 

The court finds the 22 page proposed complaint to be a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a).

Case 3:06-cv-05383-RBL-JKA Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 1 of 2

Mituniewicz v. Clark Doc. 8

Dockets.Justia.com
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 ORDER2

Fed. R. of Civ. P. 8 (a) mandates a complaint contain a short plain statement of the grounds upon

which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short plain statement of the claim, and demand for

judgement of relief. The 22 page proposed complaint contains pages of quotations to RCW’s, is

convoluted, and is not a plain short statement.

Plaintiff is Ordered to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint will act as a

complete substitute for the original and not as a supplement. In the amended complaint plaintiff is

instructed to plainly tell the court what disability he alleges he suffers from and what relief he is

seeking. Plaintiff is further ordered to fully explain what each abbreviation he uses is. By way of

example, in the proposed complaint plaintiff refers to his disability as P4, U3, D3, X4. A footnote on

page 2 of the complaint links these letters and numbers to some type of test score, but, plaintiff does

not explain what these scores mean or what disability he claims to have. Plaintiff’s allegations

regarding the Department of Corrections use of an LSI-R is another example of plaintiff’s failure to

explain his cause of action in plain language. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that if he is seeking restoration of earned time, an award of earned time

not awarded, or damages for time taken or not awarded he will first have to obtain relief by way of

Habeas Corpus with its attendant exhaustion requirements. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

(1994). 

Plaintiff has also filed a proposed motion for appointment of counsel. All pending motions

are DENIED. An amended complaint will be filed with the court on or before September 1st, 2006. 

The clerk’s office is directed to mail plaintiff a copy of this corder and note the September 1st, 2006

due date for the amended complaint.

Plaintiff is reminded to send a filled out Marshal Service form and copy of the amended

complaint for each defendant he wishes the court to attempt to serve. 

DATED this 31st day of July, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05383-RBL-JKA Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 2 of 2