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 

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate

Judge J. Kelley Arnold. Dkt. 129. The Court has considered the relevant documents and the

remainder of the file herein.

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff is a resident of the Special

Commitment Center (“SCC”) and, because he is a frequent and vexatious litigator, is subject to a

case management order that restricts his litigation. Dkt. 2. In the present matter, Plaintiff is limited

to litigating the adverse consequences of a disciplinary hearing held on April 6, 2006, regarding

alleged violations of SCC policy. Dkt. 2.

On January 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order regarding a

period of time in which he alleges he was “put in lock down (to the unit) status.” Dkt. 73. The facts

relating to this incident are recounted in the Report and Recommendation, and need not be repeated

here. On April 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Appeal of Dkt. #127, #128 Orders and

Response to Report and Recommendation #129” with a four page attachment. Dkt. 131. On May

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 181 Filed 05/31/07 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

ORDER

Page - 2

8, 2007, the same pleading was docketed again, but with a five page attachment. Dkt. 134. 

The pleadings state that, “[t]hese denials are borderline [sic] an abuse of discretion. Clearly

this case will never get beyond point “A” as long as Judge Arnold remains in control. He must be

replaced. He is obstructing justice a federal crime. There is no relationship between the mt for TRO

and his description also.” Dkts. 131 and 134. His attachments each state that he was “refused

copies of these exhibits.” Id. On May 15, 2007, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

appeal and motion for recusal, but indicated that to the extent Plaintiff intends these pleadings (Dkts.

131 and 134) to be an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 129), the Court would

consider the remaining arguments when the Report and Recommendation is ripe for consideration on

May 25, 2007. Dkt. 147. Defendants filed a Response to the Objections, and raise the argument

that Plaintiff’s exhibits, which state that he has been refused copies, are misleading. Dkt. 149. 

Defendants note that although he does not receive an unlimited number of copies, Plaintiff has been

granted a substantial exception to the monthly allotment of copies. Id. On May 22, 2007, Plaintiff

filed a “Reply to Response R & R = TRO”, and alleges that based on Judge Arnold’s Report and

Recommendation, he has been moved. Dkt. 168. 

Plaintiff’s argument, that the facts in the Report and Recommendation are not related to the

facts in his motion for a temporary restraining order, is without merit. Moreover to the extent that

Plaintiff intends that the Reply filed on May 22, 2007 (Dkt. 168) be considered as objections to this

Report and Recommendation, the objections are without merit because they do not address the

issues presented. Dkt. 168. As stated in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to

meet the standards required to be given the injunctive relief that he seeks. Accordingly, the Report

and Recommendation should be adopted. In light of the multiple pleadings already filed regarding

this Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, (Dkt. 73), no motions for reconsideration will be

entertained. 

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that,

(1) U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 129) is

ADOPTED; 

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 181 Filed 05/31/07 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

ORDER

Page - 3

(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants,

and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold. Any Motions for Reconsideration of Adoption of this Report and

Recommendation shall be docketed by the Clerk, but no further action will be taken. 

DATED this 31st day of May, 2007.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 181 Filed 05/31/07 Page 3 of 3