Hayes v. State of Washington, Department of Corrections et al

Filing 261

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Judge Benjamin H. Settle re 229 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Donald C Hayes. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Donald Hayes, Prisoner ID: 766385)(TG)

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

6
7
8

DONALD C. HAYES,

CASE NO. C16-5095 BHS-DWC
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 220), and
Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (Dkt. 229).
On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and
injunction. Dkt. 196. On October 31, 2017, Judge Christel issued his R&R
recommending that motion be denied on the bases that: (1) Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief against non-parties, (2) the injunctive relief requested is unrelated to Plaintiff’s
underlying claim set out in his fourth amended complaint, and (3) Plaintiff would be

22

ORDER - 1

1

unlikely to succeed on the merits even if the requested relief were properly related to his

2

underlying complaint. Dkt. 220. On November 9, 2017, Plaintiff objected to the R&R.

3

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s

4

disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or

5

modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

6

magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

7

Plaintiff does not actually raise any objections to the R&R. Instead, Plaintiff asks

8

that the Court grant him leave to file a fifth amended complaint, adding new parties and

9

asserting claims unrelated to his underlying fourth amended complaint. This is not a

10

proper objection to the R&R’s disposition regarding Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

11

restraining order and injunction.

12

Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint, the Court

13

denies such leave. First, the Court notes that such a motion is improperly made when

14

raised in opposition to an R&R on a temporary restraining order and injunction. Any such

15

request for leave to amend should have been brought in a new motion before Judge

16

Christel, after which, if granted, Plaintiff could renew his request for injunctive relief.

17

However, more importantly, Plaintiff’s request is clearly nothing more than an attempt to

18

resurrect his § 1983 claim against the Washington State Department of Corrections that

19

was already dismissed on February 23, 2017. See Dkts. 111, 133. Accordingly, the Court

20

denies Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a fifth amended complaint.

21
22

The Court having considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the remaining
record, does hereby find and order as follows:

ORDER - 2

1

(1)

The R&R (Dkt. 220) is ADOPTED; and

2

(2)

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

3

Dated this 11th day of December, 2017.

A

4
5

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3