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-1

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 DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE

STATEMENT, LIBERALLY

INTERPRETING PLAINTIFF’S

PLEADINGS, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

This action has been filed under the Americans with a Disabilities Act as a Civil Rights

Action. The action has been re-referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before the court are two motions. Defendants ask the court order plaintiff

to provide a more definite statement (Dkt # 46). Plaintiff asks for a lengthy extension of time to file

a second amended complaint (Dkt. # 47). Plaintiff’s motion appears to be a response to the motion

for a more definite statement. 

When this action was first filed, the complaint was a 22 page long document that was

somewhat convoluted (Dkt. # 6). It appeared plaintiff was challenging loss of good time credits and

Case 3:06-cv-05383-RBL Document 50 Filed 07/11/07 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-2

length of his incarceration as part of the complaint. The court ordered an amended complaint be

filed (Dkt. # 8). When a complaint was not timely filed, the court entered a Report and

Recommendation to dismiss the action (Dkt # 9). 

The action was dismissed and then reopened (Dkt. # 12 to 17). An amended complaint that

is only 9 pages long was filed (Dkt # 19). Plaintiff also filed a memorandum in support of his

complaint that makes clear he is bringing the action as a discrimination action under the Americans

with a Disabilities Act, ADA (Dkt. # 20).

The court considers the amended complaint as stating a viable cause of action for

discrimination under the ADA. The court ordered service by mail be attempted and some, though

not all, defendants have been served (Dkt. # 27 to 43).

Defendants now move for a more definite statement (Dkt. # 46). Plaintiff sometimes

misspells a word or uses the wrong word. While the court agrees that the amended complaint could

be clearer, the intent of the complaint is clear.

The court has reread the amended complaint. The court has a duty to liberally interpret the

complaint as plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469 (9th Cir. 1992). Liberally

interpreting the complaint, the court finds that page 1 outlines the history of the alleged injuries that

plaintiff claims caused him to become a disabled person. Pages two and three identify the parties to

the action. On the last portion of page three plaintiff begins his statement of the claims.

Plaintiff alleges John and Jane Doe medical staff at RAP Lincoln House discriminated against

him by excluding him from participation in housing and programs. See, Amended Complaint ¶ 3.3. 

Plaintiff alleges John Doe contract medical provider discriminated against him by refusing to reduce

his medical disabilities scores. Plaintiff alleges the reduction in scores would make him eligible for

placement at RAP Lincoln House. See, Amended Complaint ¶ 3.4. Plaintiff alleges Joop DeJonge

refused to override the decision of RAP Lincoln House to not accept plaintiff and thereby

Case 3:06-cv-05383-RBL Document 50 Filed 07/11/07 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

1 This defendant no longer works for the Department of Corrections and the attempt to

serve him by mail failed.

ORDER-3

discriminated against him.1

 See, Amended Complaint ¶ 3.5. Plaintiff alleges Harold Clarke

discriminated against him by not providing “independent living arraignments.” See, Amended

Complaint ¶ 3.6 Plaintiff alleges defendant Ken Quinn discriminated against him by not letting him

use the handicapped showers or handicapped doors at MCC/MSU. See, Amended Complaint ¶ 3.7. 

Plaintiff alleges Custody Unit Supervisor Jon Schaller discriminated against him by not sending out

work release applications on plaintiffs’ behalf. See, Amended Complaint ¶ 3.8. Finally, plaintiff

alleges defendant Deborah Holly discriminated against him by not assisting him in developing a Work

Release plan. See, Amended Complaint ¶ 3.9.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for the discrimination claims. He also seeks injunctive relief

that would force the Department of Corrections provide disabled persons with assistance in obtaining

General Assistance for Unemployed persons, (GAU), and Social Security Benefits, prior to being

released. See, complaint section IV.

With this clarification the court does not believe a motion for a more definite statement is

warranted. The motion is DENIED. If the court’s interpretation of the complaint is incorrect, the

plaintiff is directed to immediately inform the court and counsel of the inaccuracy or omission. 

Otherwise, this order will define the scope of the action.

Having denied defendants motion, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a second

amended complaint, (Dkt # 47), is DENIED AS MOOT.

The clerk’s office is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff and counsel for

defendants and to remove docket numbers 46 and 47 from the court’s calendar. 

DATED this 11 day of July, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05383-RBL Document 50 Filed 07/11/07 Page 3 of 3