Hale v. State of Tennessee et al
ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings & Recommendation 5 , and therefore, the Complaint 2 is dismissed with prejudice. Any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Signed on 1/9/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (See attached 3-page Order)(Copy of this Order mailed to plaintiff) (pg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
THOMAS DANIEL EUGENE HALE,
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings & Recommendation (#5) on November 15,
2016, in which she recommends the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(d). Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is
now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings &
Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th
1 - ORDER
Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
After the November 15, 2016 Findings & Recommendation was filed, Plaintiff filed a
document entitled "Amending as a Writ and More for a Class Action," ECF 4. He also filed
more formal objections to the Findings & Recommendation on December 5, 2016, ECF 7. Like
the original Complaint, these documents are incomprehensible and provide no basis for
modifying Judge Russo's recommendation in any way. The Complaint, as well as Plaintiff's
other submissions, fails to state a claim, fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8,
fails to establish why venue in the District of Oregon is proper, and fails to offer any
decipherable allegation of facts that this Court could even attempt to understand.
The Court further notes that a recent decision by the District of Tennessee summarily
dismissing another action filed by Plaintiff, characterized the filing there as "us[ing] English
words and punctuation, but is otherwise incomprehensible." Hale v. Tennessee, No.
7:16CV00552, 2016 WL 7027211, at *2 (W.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2016). That decision further noted
that Plaintiff "has had numerous prior civil actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for
failure to state a claim" over many years. Id. It appears that Plaintiff routinely files frivolous,
incomprehensive pleadings. At this point, the Court concludes that the deficiencies of the
Complaint in this case cannot be cured by amendment and thus, the action is dismissed with
prejudice. I have reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no errors in the
Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
2 - ORDER
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings & Recommendation , and
therefore, the Complaint  is dismissed with prejudice. Any appeal of this dismissal would not
be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge
3 - ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?