Dodge v. Monroe Correctional Complex - Twin Rivers Unit et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO REOPEN CASE by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Michael Dodge, Prisoner ID: 715350)(ST)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 _______________________________________ ) MICHAEL DODGE, ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ) MONROE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX ) TWIN RIVERS UNIT, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) _______________________________________) No. C15-0183RSL ORDER 14 15 On August 23, 2017, the Court received a letter from petitioner seeking to reopen the 16 above-captioned matter and objecting to the withdrawal of funds from his prisoner account to 17 pay the filing fee. Dkt. # 19. Petitioner asserts that he was prevented from pursuing this litigation 18 in 2015 because his custodians at Monroe Correctional Complex interfered with his access to the 19 law library and legal mail, his request for appointment of counsel was denied, and he is legally 20 blind. Petitioner also argues that the Court improperly charged a filing fee after granting his 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis. 22 Petitioner’s challenges at the correctional facility were known in 2015 and did not prevent 23 him from participating in this litigation: he timely amended his application to proceed in forma 24 pauperis (Dkt. # 5), requested an extension of time and appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 9), and 25 objected to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 12). His request for counsel was denied 26 because the exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel in a civil case did ORDER 1 not exist. Dkt. # 10 at 2. Nor was there any indication that his vision impairment made him 2 unable to articulate his claims pro se. Finally, his objection to the payment of the filing fee was 3 overruled at Dkt. # 18. The application to proceed in forma pauperis included a specific 4 “Acknowledgment and Authorization” just above the signature line in which petitioner 5 authorized the agency having custody over him to collect monthly payments toward the filing 6 fee. 7 8 9 10 Judgment was entered in this case on July 7, 2015. Petitioner has not established any of the grounds that could justify relief from that judgment as set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). His request to reopen the case is therefore DENIED. 11 12 Dated this 29th day of August, 2017. A Robert S. Lasnik 13 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER -2-

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?