IN RE: Richard Roy Scott

Filing 121

ORDER that the action submited 4/21/11 119 shall not be permitted to proceed. Neither the Clerk of Court nor defendant need take any further action with regards to this matter. Signed by Chief Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (CMG; cc to Plaintiff Scott)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

_________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
KELLY CUNNINGHAM,
)
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________ )
RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

14

No. MC05-5029
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 5, 2005, the United

15

States District Court judges who sit in Tacoma entered an order dismissing a number of

16

plaintiff’s causes of action and barring future litigation “[i]n all future cases” unless plaintiff

17

provides a signed affidavit, along with the proposed complaint, “verifying under penalty of

18

perjury that none of the issues raised in the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by

19

the plaintiff.” Scott v. Seling, C04-5147RJB, Dkt. # 170 at 4. On March 26, 2007, the Court

20

also entered an order declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant and prohibiting him from proceeding

21

in forma pauperis in any action in the United States District Court for the Western District of

22

Washington unless he shows that he is in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Scott v.

23

Weinberg, C06-5172FDB, Dkt. # 95 at 15.

24

On April 21, 2011, the Clerk of Court received a complaint (Dkt. # 119) and a

25

letter (Dkt. # 120) indicating that a check in the amount of the filing fee would be sent directly

26

from plaintiff’s trust account to the Court in a few days. These documents are now before the
ORDER

1

undersigned for review pursuant to the terms of the April 5, 2005, bar order.
As of this date, the Court has not yet received the promised filing fee. Nor is there

2
3

any indication that plaintiff is in imminent danger of death or serious injury. His most recent

4

claims are based on an alleged deprivation of access to the courts as retaliation for his litigation

5

and First Amendment activities: no physical harm is alleged. Pursuant to the March 26, 2007,

6

order restricting plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, this action may not proceed.

7

Plaintiff has also failed to “submit a signed affidavit . . . verifying under penalty of

8

perjury that none of the issues raised in the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by

9

plaintiff” as required by the April 5, 2005, bar order. For this additional reason, the action

10

submitted on April 21, 2011(Dkt. #119) shall not be permitted to proceed. The Clerk of Court is

11

directed to docket this order in MC05-5029. Neither the Clerk of Court nor defendant need take

12

any further action with regards to this matter.

13

Dated this 4th day of May, 2011.

14
15
16

A
Robert S. Lasnik
Chief Judge, United States District Court

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER

-2-