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.

SPECIAL COMMITMENT CENTER,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5359RBL

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA

PAUPERIS, APPLICATION, ORDERING ENTRY OF THE

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER,

AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF 

TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

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

avers he is unemployed, but he also states he received $50 per month as director of a non profit

organization. (Dkt. # 1). Plaintiff states the organization “ran out of funds.” (Dkt. # 1). 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

Case 3:06-cv-05359-RBL Document 7 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

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 the proposed

complaint. The only named defendant in this action is the Special Commitment Center. In order to state a

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege that the conduct complained of was committed by a

person acting under color of state law and that the conduct deprived a person of a right, privilege, or

immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535

(1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).(emphasis added). Section

1983 is the appropriate avenue to remedy an alleged wrong only if both of these elements are present.

Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020 (1986).

The Special Commitment Center is not a person. See, Will v. Michigan Department of State

Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). Plaintiff will need to amend the complaint to name a proper party defendant

prior to service. 

That is not the only defect in the complaint. Throughout the proposed complaint plaintiff speaks in

the abstract and in the third person. The plaintiff seeks declaratory relief regarding a wide number of

policies at the Special Commitment Center. But he provides no facts to show the issues are relevant to

him. By way of example he alleges “[a]s a sanction for a BMR a detainee pesson [sic] property can be

taken without a warrant on any hearing prior to the taking of their pessonal [sic] property.” (Dkt. # 1

proposed complaint ¶ 14).

Nowhere in the entire complaint does plaintiff allege facts specific to him. Of course, plaintiff

cannot litigate on behalf of others and to seek any form of injunctive relief he must have standing. Lujan v.

National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990). The complaint is deficient and contains only

conclusory statements. Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint naming a person as defendant and

limiting the facts to issues he has standing to litigate. Plaintiff needs to set forth operative facts relevant to

him.

The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for the original and must be filed on or

Case 3:06-cv-05359-RBL Document 7 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

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

sen plaintiff a copy of this order. Failure to comply with this order will result in a Report and

Recommendation to dismiss this action.

DATED this 17th, day of July, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05359-RBL Document 7 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 3