Hausken v. Lewis et al

Filing 12

ORDER that the Court denies Plaintiff's 10 MOTION to modify, terminate, or reduce legal financial obligations, signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura. (CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9

10 PHILLIP BURTON HAUSKEN,
11
12

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION ON
LEGAL FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS

v.

13 D LEWIS et al.,
14

CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05346-RBL

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20

The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States
Magistrate Judge, J. Richard Creatura. The Court’s authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4.
On June 14, 2013, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because
this action was duplicative of another case where plaintiff was pursuing injunctive relief on the same
issue. Dkt. 7; see Hausken v. Lewis, 12-5882BHS/JRC. The case was closed on June 17, 2013. See

21
generally Dkt. 8. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to modify, terminate, or reduce legal

22
financial obligations. Dkt. 10.

23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION ON LEGAL
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS - 1

1

The handwriting in plaintiff’s motion is very hard to read but the Court interprets plaintiff’s

2 motion as follows:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

I should only be charged for one case 05882 Daniel Lewis instead of 3-5346-05514
both with D Lewis[.] I should only be [charged] for one case 05344 05514 both with
[Daniel] Lewis as correspondents for both cases he state [word is unclear] 350.00 … I
have no money and no job…I can’t pay the debt ... If you can be charged for the
cases when you did not deny [in forma pauperis] status, The state can deny back
cases where you did not [unclear] [in forma pauperis status] and charged your
[unclear] from to give … 4 5 or 6 strikes instead of 3, the states should have a
[unclear] they have charge[d] you. If you didn’t have [in forma pauperis status] you
could not be charged.
Id. at 1-2.
Because plaintiff’s motion was unclear, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause and

explain what action he wishes the Court to take. Dkt. 11. Plaintiff’s response was due by
November 2, 2015 and the Court advised plaintiff that if he failed to respond to the Court’s
order, the Court would deny the motion. Id. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order.
Thus, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion to modify, terminate, or reduce legal financial
obligations.
Dated this 9th day of November, 2015.

16

A

17

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION ON LEGAL
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS - 2