United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY ALICE THEILER, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Robert Guthrie is currently confined at the Snohomish County Jail. On December 23, 2014, the Court received from Mr. Guthrie a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleged that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was denied adequate medical treatment for serious medical conditions by Snohomish County Jail employees. ( See Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff identified Snohomish County, Correctional Officer Sigh, and Dr. Stuart Anders as defendants in his complaint. ( See id. ) Plaintiff requested $2 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. ( Id. ) Plaintiff submitted with his complaint a declaration in support of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. ( See id. )
For reasons that are unclear, plaintiff's complaint was not processed by the Clerk's Office until January 9, 2015 when the instant action was opened. ( See Dkt. 1.) On the same date, the Clerk's Office sent plaintiff a letter advising him that his submission was defective because he failed to submit either the full filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and he failed to provide a copy of his prison trust account statement. (Dkt. 2.) Plaintiff was given a deadline of February 9, 2015 to correct the identified deficiencies. ( Id. )
On January 6, 2015, before the complaint in this action was processed by the Clerk's Office, the Court received another complaint from plaintiff alleging essentially the same claims as are asserted in the complaint before the Court in this action. Plaintiff submitted with his second complaint an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's second complaint was processed on January 8, 2015, and was assigned case number C15-31-RSL-BAT. On January 13, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis in that action. ( See C15-31-RSL-BAT, Dkt. 4.) On the same date, the Court issued an Order declining to serve plaintiff's complaint and granting him leave to amend. (C15-31-RSL-BAT, Dkt. 6.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in that action on January 22, 2015, and that complaint was ordered served on defendants on January 26, 2015. (C15-31-RSL-BAT, Dkts. 12 and 14.)
On January 28, 2015, the Court received from plaintiff a letter seeking clarification regarding his two ongoing actions. ( See Dkt. 6 and C15-31-RSL-BAT, Dkt. 16.) Plaintiff appears to indicate in his letter that the complaint received by the Court on January 6, 2015, and assigned case number C15-31-RSL-BAT, was actually an amendment of the complaint received by the Court on December 23, 2014, and assigned case number C15-36-JLR-MAT. ( See Dkt. 6 and C15-31-RSL-BAT, Dkt. 16.) It does not appear that plaintiff intended to bring two separate actions.
Because essentially the same claims are pending before the Court in the instant action and in case number C15-31-RSL-BAT, and because case C15-31-RSL-BAT is more procedurally advanced, this Court recommends that the instant action be dismissed as duplicative. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.
Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit within twenty-one (21) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge's motions calendar for the third Friday after they are filed. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of ...