LeBoe v. King County Sheriff et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. Plaintiff's 6 Complaint and this action are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a viable claim for relief. Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Counsel is DENIED. Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Legal Supplies and Legal Access; 16 Motion for Legal Supplies, Original Documents and Transcripts and 17 Motion to Stay are DENIED as moot. This dismissal shall count as a STRIKE under U.S.C. § 1915(g). (cc: plaintiff via USPS) (ST)

Case 2:21-cv-01110-BJR Document 18 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

REMINGTON DONO LeBOE,

8

No. 2:21-cv-1110-BJR-SKV
Plaintiff,

9
v.
10

KING COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued on October
14
15

14, 2021, by the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, U.S. Magistrate Judge. Dkt. No. 15. Magistrate

16

Judge Vaughan recommends: (1) that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for

17

failure to identify a viable claim for relief; (2) that dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint be counted

18

as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (3) that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt.

19

No. 11) and motion for legal supplies and legal access (Dkt. No. 13) be denied.

20

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. However, Plaintiff

21
22
23

has contacted the Court several times regarding this case since the Report and Recommendation
was issued. On October 15, 2021, the Court received a request from Plaintiff for legal supplies

24

and “original documents and transcripts.” Dkt. No. 16. On November 1, 2021, the Court

25

received a written request from Plaintiff to change his address to Western State Hospital (WSH)1

26
1

On November 3, 2021, Plaintiff also verbally informed the Court by telephone of his change of address to WSH.

ORDER - 1

Case 2:21-cv-01110-BJR Document 18 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3

1

and to stay consideration of this case (as well as several other cases that Plaintiff has pending in

2

this Court) for 45 days. Dkt. No. 17. On December 13, 2021, Plaintiff contacted the Court “to

3

relay he has not received mail regarding his case” and indicated that the law library has been

4
5

closed due to COVID and that he did not have access to legal materials. The same day, the Clerk
confirmed Plaintiff’s address at WSH and mailed Plaintiff a copy of his complaint, the Report

6
7
8
9

and Recommendation, and the docket report for this matter.
As a result, the record indicates that the Report and Recommendation was mailed to
Plaintiff at his new address of record at WSH on December 13, 2021, and Plaintiff has had

10

sufficient time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. See Local Civil Rule 72(b)

11

(providing that objections to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition must be filed within

12

14 days of being served unless the Court enlarges the time period); Dkt. No. 15 at 4 (providing

13
that objections to the Report and Recommendation in this case were to be filed within 21 days of
14
15
16
17

the date on which the Report and Recommendation was originally signed on October 14, 2021).
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court
finds and ORDERS as follows:

18

(1) The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15).

19

(2) Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 6) and this action are DISMISSED without prejudice

20

for failure to state a viable claim for relief.

21
22
23

(3) This dismissal shall count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
(4) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 11) is DENIED. In

24

considering a request to appoint counsel, the Court evaluates Plaintiff’s likelihood of

25

success on the merits, as well as his ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of

26

the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
ORDER - 2

Case 2:21-cv-01110-BJR Document 18 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3

1

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, Plaintiff has not shown a strong ability to articulate his

2

claims as a pro se litigant. However, Plaintiff also has not shown a likelihood of

3

success on the merits of his claims; instead, as the Report and Recommendation

4

notes, Plaintiff improperly seeks this Court’s intervention in Plaintiff’s state court

5
criminal proceedings. As a result, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not
6
7

warranted.

8

(5) Plaintiff’s remaining motions (Dkt. Nos. 13, 16, and 17) are DENIED as moot.

9

(6) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable S.

10
11

Kate Vaughan.
DATED January 7, 2022.

12

A

13
14

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3