Hausken v. Vande Weye et al

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 14 Motion to Amend. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 PHILLIP BURTON HAUSKEN,
9

Plaintiff,

10

CASE NO. C13-5560 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND

v.

11 KEVIN VANDE WEYE, et al.,
12

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Phillip Burton Hausken’s

15 (“Hausken”) motion to amend his complaint (Dkt.14). The Court has considered the
16 pleadings filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file, and hereby denies
17 the motion for the reasons stated herein.
18

Hausken failed to file objections to Magistrate Judge Richard Creatura’s July 15,

19 2013 Report and Recommendations (“R&R), which recommended dismissal of his case
20 (Dkt. 6). In the R&R, Judge Creatura stated:
21

Plaintiff has filed three actions in the last ten months challenging the
fact that prison officials are taking fifty cents a month from his prison

22

ORDER - 1

1

account for cable television. The actions are 12-5882BHS/JRC; 135346RBJ/JRC; and this action.

2
Dkt. 6 at 1. He further explained the “duplicative” nature of each action and
3
described Hausken’s disregard for prior orders related to those actions. Id. at 1-2.
4
Thus, Judge Creatura recommended both dismissal of Hausken’s complaint as
5
“malicious” and that his filing of the instant action count has a third strike. Id. at 26
3.
7
By failing to file objections, Hausken waived them for purposes of a de novo
8
review by the district judge. See Dkt. 6 at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). On
9
August 27, 2013, the Court, having considered the R&R and the remaining record, and no
10
objections having been filed, adopted the R&R, and dismissed the action as malicious.
11
Dkt. 12. The Court ordered that the dismissal count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
12
1915(g). Id.
13
On August 28, 2013, judgment was entered against Hausken, and his case is now
14
closed. Dkt. 13. On September 23, 2013, Hausken filed the instant motion to amend his
15
complaint apparently seeking to add the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) as a
16
Defendant. Dkt. 14 at 1-2. As Judge Creatura referenced in his R&R, Hausken has an
17
almost identical case (C12-5882BHS/JRC) pending before him regarding the deduction
18
of fifty cents from his inmate trust account. In that case, the Court determined that while
19
Hausken cannot receive money damages, he may pursue his claim for injunctive relief
20
against certain DOC employees in their official capacities. See Dkt. 40. The relief
21
22

ORDER - 2

1 Hausken could receive from adding DOC as a defendant to this action is thus being
2 sought in another action, which is essentially duplicative of this matter.
3

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Hausken’s motion to amend (Dkt. 14) is

4 DENIED.
5

Dated this 27th day of September, 2013.

A

6
7

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3