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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

AL NERIO et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5340RJB

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA

PAUPERIS, APPLICATION, ORDERING ENTRY OF THE

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER,

AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF 

TO EITHER FILE SERVICE 

DOCUMENTS OR FILE A

RENEWED MOTION FOR

ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS

The Court, has reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. # 1). The

court has also reviewed plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in Scott v. Special

Commitment Center, 06-CV-5359RBL. The court originally had concerns regarding a flow of funds into

plaintiffs’ trust account at the Special Commitment Center.

Plaintiff’s avers he is unemployed, but he also states he “draws” $50 per month as director of a non

profit organization. (Dkt. # 1). Plaintiff does not provide other information as to his connection to this

organization or to his ability to control the assets of the corporation in his application in this case. In Scott

v. Special Commitment Center, 06-CV-5359RBL he states the organization “ran out of funds.” 

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 4 Filed 07/18/06 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

(Application to proceed in forma pauperis in Scott v. Special Commitment Center, 06-CV-5359RBL, Dkt.

# 1). 

Plaintiff’s trust account with the Washington Special Commitment Center shows a flow of income

fluctuating between $150 dollars and $50 dollars per month. (Dkt. # 1, attached trust statement). In

November of 2005 plaintiff received two deposits from the “Great NW Fed CU” totaling $150 dollars. 

(Dkt. # 1, attached trust statement). Every other month he received $ 50 dollars which is consistent with

plaintiff’s statements to the court. The court assumes the bank account at “Great NW Fed CU” is

connected to the non profit organization although plaintiff does not specifically indicate that is the case.

While plaintiff provides his trust account information from the state he does not provide

information concerning the asserts in the bank account at “Great NW Fed CU.” The court takes judicial

notice of the information plaintiff provides in Scott v Special Commitment Center that the corporation is

out of funds. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

Plaintiff litigates under close judicial scrutiny as a result of past abusive practices. The District

Court Judges of this district have adopted a case management order and a sanction order relating to the

plaintiff. The orders can be found in Scott v Denny, 04- CV- 5574RBL. The case management order is

Dkt. # 30 and the sanctions order is Dkt. # 76. The case management order directs the Magistrate Judge

to enter a copy of the order in this case and the clerk of court is directed to enter a copy of the case

management order.

Now that plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status, the court considers pending motions. 

Plaintiff has filed a “Parciepe.” asking for signed summons in this case. In that document he indicates “I do

my own service of SCC Staff but I need signed summons please.”

As a person proceeding in forma pauperis, plaintiff is entitled to have the United States Marshal’s

Service attempt service by mail on his behalf. If plaintiff wishes to serve the complaint himself he will need

to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of a complaint. 

The choice is plaintiffs’, the clerk is directed to send plaintiff seven Marshals service forms. If

plaintiff’s wishes the court to order the Marshal’s attempt service by mail he needs to send a copy of the

complaint and filled out service form for each defendant. If plaintiff wishes to undertake service himself as

he need only file a renewed request for summons and return the seven copies of the service form. The

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 4 Filed 07/18/06 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 3

court will order seven summons be issued.

Plaintiff needs leave of court to obtain summons because of the case management order. That

order limits plaintiff’s ability to obtain subpoenas and mandates a court order. The court considers

summons to be a document of similar nature. Here, plaintiff has shown good cause for the issuance of

seven summons.

Plaintiff’s response, either service documents or a renewed request for summons, is due on or

before AUGUST 18th, 2006. The clerks’ office is directed to calendar that date on the court’s calendar and

the court will review the file at that time. 

DATED this 17th, day of July, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 4 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 3