Bolton v. King County Corrections et al

Filing 17

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 SCOTT CARROLL BOLTON, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 Case No. C17-388-RSM ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. KING COUNTY CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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: (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (2) 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 1 1915(g). Allowing Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss this action now, after a decision has been 2 rendered, would frustrate Congress’s aim of deterring prisoners from filing baseless lawsuits. See 3 Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 596, 118 S. Ct. 1584, 140 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1998). While the 4 Ninth Circuit has not yet considered whether a prisoner should be allowed to voluntarily dismiss 5 his action after screening has found it to be deficient, several District Courts have disapproved of 6 this practice. See Blaisdell v. Haw. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170446 (D. Haw. 7 Nov. 30, 2012) (collecting such cases). Further, to the extent Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 41(a) generally allows voluntary dismissal, that right is not unlimited and the PLRA’s screening 9 requirement and three-strikes provisions trump the civil rule. Id. Accordingly, the Court adopts 10 the R&R in full and denies Plaintiff’s request to voluntarily dismiss his action without prejudice.1 (3) 11 12 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and this action are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 13 (4) This dismissal counts as a STRIKE for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 14 (5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to Judge Donohue. 15 Dated this 7 day of August, 2017. 16 17 A 18 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 1 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?