Scott v. Strong

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; Plaintiff's time for Show Cause Response is extended to 4/8/2016; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 3/25/2016 (DN). (cc to pltf)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

CASE NO. C16-5031 RBL-KLS

9
Plaintiff,
10

ORDER ON APPEAL FROM
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER

v.
11

[DKT.#19]
MARK STRONG, et al.,

12
Defendants.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Scott’s Appeal [Dkt.# 19] from

15 Magistrate Judge Strombom’s Order requiring him to Show Cause or (for a third time) Amend
16 his Complaint [Dkt. #15]1 Scott does not directly address the portion of Judge Strombom’s Order
17 that directs him to clarify and bolster his complaint to state a claim under §1983. He claims
18 instead that Judge Strombom is biased against him and should be disqualified from the case. He
19 argues that her requirement that an amendment include a “short and plain statement” of his claim
20
21
22

1

The Order granted Scott’s Motion to Amend a second time, and in consistent with the
23 order the second amended complaint has been filed [Dkt. #16]. The Order declined to serve the
complaint due to enumerated deficiencies, and instead ordered him to show cause why it should
24 not be dismissed, or to amend the complaint again.
ORDER ON APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S ORDER - 1

1 is a requirement that applies to Prison Litigation Reform Act claims, and emphasizes that he is
2 not a prisoner.
3

Scott is mistaken about the source of the “short and plain statement” requirement—it

4 comes from Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), which applies to all federal complaints, including those in
5 this case. The remainder of Judge Strombom’s Order accurately and fairly sets forth what a
6 viable complaint must allege and contain, even for a pro se litigant.
7

A plaintiff’s complaint must allege facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its

8 face. See Aschcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim has “facial plausibility”
9 when the party seeking relief “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
10 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Although the Court must
11 accept as true the Complaint’s well-pled facts, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted
12 inferences will not defeat a Rule 12(c) motion. Vazquez v. L. A. County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249
13 (9th Cir. 2007); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A]
14 plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than
15 labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
16 do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
17 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations and footnotes omitted). This
18 requires a plaintiff to plead “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me19 accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly).
20

Scott’s appeal of the Show Cause or Amend Order is DENIED, but the due date for his

21 response to that order is EXTENDED to April 8.
22
23
24

[DKT.#19] - 2

1

Scott’s Motion to Recuse Judge Strombom is properly addressed in the first instance to

2 Judge Strombom herself. LCR3(e). If she declines to recuse voluntarily, she will refer the matter
3 to the Chief Judge.
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated this 25th day of March, 2016.

7

A

8

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

6

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

[DKT.#19] - 3