Oster v. Clarke et al

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RETURN OF SEIZED LEGAL PAPERS, denying 63 Motion to Amend ; adopting Report and Recommendation re 64 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) Paper copy sent to plaintiff @ Stafford Creek CC . Modified on 5/4/2009 (JL).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom (Dkt. 64), Plaintiff's Motion for Return of Seized Legal Papers, Permission to Use Writ-Writer and to Supplement the Complaint, and for Imposition of Sanctions ("Motion for Return of Seized Legal Papers") (Dkt. 63) and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER: (1) The plaintiff requests in his Motion for Return of Seized Legal Papers (Dkt. 63) that the court (a) order the defendants to return legal papers seized from the plaintiff and Mr. Silva, a prisoner the plaintiff states is assisting him in this case; (b) appoint Mr Silva to act as the plaintiff's "writwriter"; (c) permit the plaintiff to supplement the complaint; and (d) impose sanctions on the defendants, defense counsel and/or the Washington State Department of Corrections. Dkt. 63. Assuming that the plaintiff's legal papers were seized by Department of Corrections' staff, the plaintiff has not shown that the Department of Corrections acted improperly in taking the documents or issuing infractions against the plaintiff. For this reason, the court should not order
ORDER Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

OSTER, GARY, Case No. C07-5508RJB-KLS Plaintiff, v. CLARKE, HAROLD, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RETURN OF SEIZED LEGAL PAPERS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the defendants to return legal papers. The court should not order another prisoner to assist the plaintiff in the preparation of his case. The court should not impose sanctions on the defendants because the plaintiff has not shown that the Department of Corrections acted improperly in allegedly taking the documents. Furthermore, the plaintiff had adequate time to prepare any objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 64). Finally, the court should not permit the plaintiff to amend his complaint because the facts stated in this motion are unrelated to the plaintiff's underlying allegations in his complaint and are untimely because the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 64) is before the court on a motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's Motion for Return of Seized Papers is DENIED. (2) The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 64) is ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 47) is GRANTED. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that are sufficient to form a basis for a constitutional violation; plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. DATED this 4th day of May, 2009.

A
Robert J. Bryan United States District Judge

ORDER Page - 2