IN RE: Richard Roy Scott

Filing 174

ORDER denying 173 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.(CDA)cc Richard Scott via US Mail

Case 3:05-mc-05029-RSM Document 174 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

Case No. 3:05-mc-5029-RSM

10
11
12

IN RE: RICHARD ROY SCOTT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP

13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Richard Roy Scott’s Application to

16

Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. #173. Plaintiff, a resident of the Special Commitment Center

17

(“SCC”) on McNeil Island, has been previously declared a “vexatious litigant” and is

18

“prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis in any future action in the United States District

19

Court for the Western District of Washington… unless the Court determines that he is in

20
21
22

imminent danger of death or serious injury.”

Scott v. Weinberg, Case No. 3:06-cv-05172-

FDB, Dkt. #95.

23

Upon review of Plaintiff’s current proposed complaint, Dkt. #173-1, the Court

24

determines that he is not in imminent danger of death or serious injury and will deny his

25

request for IFP status.

26
27
28

Plaintiff claims that “[a]ll medical care for Richard Scott has stopped,” and that he has
not been to the medical clinic “in part because [the director of the medical department] reduced

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP - 1

Case 3:05-mc-05029-RSM Document 174 Filed 12/07/20 Page 2 of 3

1

the ARPN to just week ends, 12 hours total.”

Dkt. #173 at 2.

He claims that it was

2

recommended to him four year ago to have a camera examination of his throat “to determine if

3

he had an obstruction in his throat or maybe even cancer.” Id. He states that he has put in sick

4

call slips and has not been seen. The reasons Plaintiff gave for needing medical care were

5
6

concern about possible skin cancer and stating that his “right arm was sore/painful.” Id.

7

Plaintiff states that he has requested to renew his over the counter medications (he does not

8

identify them to the Court) and the clinic’s response was “could you be more specific.” Id. at

9

3. Plaintiff then lists certain medications that have been renewed and others that have not,

10

including “A&D ointment,” petroleum jelly, and “alleges [sic] med.” Id. Plaintiff then lists

11
12

several non-life-threatening ailments such as having to urinate “constantly” and a pinched

13

nerve in his neck. Id. He states he “was prescribed a hospital bed and has one but it doesn’t

14

have a remote control.” Id. He indicates that without certain medications his health conditions

15

will worsen. Id. at 4.

16

Plaintiff has twice this year attempted to proceed IFP with complaints addressing the

17
18

social distancing and sanitation policies at the SCC, as well as restrictions on his access to

19

haircuts, recreational and religious activities, and to a computer for legal research. See Dkts.

20

#163 and #168.

21

It is clear to the Court that Plaintiff’s access to these activities has been

reduced or banned due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff admits this. See Dkt.

22
23

#173-2 (“we have… new mewdical [sic] Staff and procedures in part due to the virus and

24

budget issues”). It seems likely that his access to the clinic has been reduced given the

25

unprecedented public health situation.

26
27

As the Court has previously found, Plaintiff still has access to medical care, but medical
staff has been reduced and elective off island medical procedures have stopped. Plaintiff does

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP - 2

Case 3:05-mc-05029-RSM Document 174 Filed 12/07/20 Page 3 of 3

1

not identify a specific need for immediate medical care to deal with a life-threatening issue or a

2

serious injury. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is in imminent

3

danger of death or serious injury.

4

Pursuant to the bar order above, Plaintiff is not entitled to IFP status to prosecute his

5
6

claims.

If he wishes to proceed, he must pay the required filing fee for his complaint.

7

Plaintiff’s concerns over deviations from SCC policies are best directed to the leadership at the

8

SCC.

9
10

Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Richard Roy Scott’s
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. #173, is DENIED. The clerk is directed to

11
12

provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff.

13
14

DATED this 7th day of December, 2020.

15
16
17
18

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP - 3