Bolton v. King County Corrections et al
ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Ricardo S Martinez re 15 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Scott Carroll Bolton. The Court finds and ORDERS:(1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. the Court adoptsthe R&R in full and denies Plaintiffs request to voluntarily dismiss his action without prejudice.1(3) Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and this action are DISMISSED with prejudice forfailure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.(4) This dismissal counts as a STRIKE for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Scott Bolton, Prisoner ID: 971543)(SG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
SCOTT CARROLL BOLTON,
Case No. C17-388-RSM
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
KING COUNTY CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable James P.
Donohue, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, the objections or responses to that, and the
remaining record, the Court finds and ORDERS:
The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.
After Judge Donohue issued his R&R, Plaintiff filed Objections in which he asked
the Court to dismiss his Complaint without prejudice because he could not access the law library
(Dkt. #15), and a separate motion to dismiss his Complaint without prejudice for the same reason
(Dkt. #16). That request is DENIED. The Court expended considerable time and effort reviewing
Plaintiff’s claims, assessing their merits, and determining whether Plaintiff’s action should be
served on Defendants. Ultimately, Judge Donohue determined that all of Plaintiff’s claims were
deficient and should be dismissed, and that this dismissal should count as a strike under Section
ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1
1915(g). Allowing Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss this action now, after a decision has been
rendered, would frustrate Congress’s aim of deterring prisoners from filing baseless lawsuits. See
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 596, 118 S. Ct. 1584, 140 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1998). While the
Ninth Circuit has not yet considered whether a prisoner should be allowed to voluntarily dismiss
his action after screening has found it to be deficient, several District Courts have disapproved of
this practice. See Blaisdell v. Haw. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170446 (D. Haw.
Nov. 30, 2012) (collecting such cases). Further, to the extent Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a) generally allows voluntary dismissal, that right is not unlimited and the PLRA’s screening
requirement and three-strikes provisions trump the civil rule. Id. Accordingly, the Court adopts
the R&R in full and denies Plaintiff’s request to voluntarily dismiss his action without prejudice.1
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and this action are DISMISSED with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
This dismissal counts as a STRIKE for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to Judge Donohue.
Dated this 7 day of August, 2017.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court also notes that Plaintiff is no stranger to this Court, having filed at least ten separate
actions in this District over at least the past six years, and is therefore familiar with the Court’s
requirements, procedures and practices.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 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?