Todd v. Skrah et al

Filing 23

ORDER: Granting Motion to Dismiss 12 ; Adopting Findings and Recommendation 18 . Signed on 8/8/2017 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. A copy of this Order was mailed to pro se plaintiff John H. Todd. (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION

JOHN H. TODD,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00738-CL

ORDER
Plaintiff,
vs.
FRANK SKRAH, GERALD WARREN, and
KLAMATH COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

AIKEN, Judge:
On June 19, 2017, Magistrate Judge Clarke filed his Report and Recommendation
("R&R") (doc. 18), reconm1ending this Court dismiss with prejudice the complaint in this case
on the grounds of claim preclusion and failure to state a claim. The R&R is now before me
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. I review de nova those pmtions of the
R&R to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);

Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004). I find no error in Judge Clarke's
reasoning and agree that plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed.

Page 1 - ORDER

I therefore ADOPT Judge

Clarke's R&R (doc. 18), subject to the caveat discussed below, and GRANT defendants' Motion
to Dismiss (doc. 12).
Judge Clarke recommended the imposition of a Rule 11 sanction against plaintiff: a prefiling order requiring review of all filings related to the removal of his cats from his home on
June 15, 2015. Judge Clarke based that recommendation on the numerous lawsuits plaintiff has
filed related to that incident, finding that plaintiff '"has clearly shown ... that, unless enjoined,
he will continually attempt to renew his conflict' with Klamath County and its employees."
R&R 11 (citing Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1525 (9th
Cir. 1983)). In his objections to the R&R, plaintiff argues that any such pre-filing order is
unnecessary because he is aware that any future claims arising from the June 15, 2015, seizure of
his cats would be time-baned by the two-year statute of limitations. Although I agree with
defendants that the sanctions recommended by Judge Clarke are "minimal and propmiionate to
plaintiffs conduct," Defs.' Resp. Pl.'s Obj. R&R 5, I nonetheless decline to impose any sanction
at this time. Instead, I take plaintiff at his word that he will respect the statute of limitations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 2 - ORDER