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)
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?