United States District Court, W.D. Washington
W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge
District Court referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to
United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff
Richard Roy Scott, a civil detainee proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”),
initiated this action on September 6, 2016. See Dkt.
1. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's “Mt
to conduct Discovery Mt for Expert Funding Mt for Special
Master or Standby Lawyer Request for Status Conference Mt to
Consolidate (sic)” (“Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief”), “Motion for Leave to conduct a
non-stenographic Depositions of defendant Hook and/or Talbert
(sic)” (“Motion to Conduct Deposition”),
and a request for sanctions. Dkt. 36, 41, 42.
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Dkt. 36)
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Plaintiff (1) requests a
telephonic status conference and (2) moves to consolidate his
case with two other cases presently pending in this Court.
Plaintiff states he would like a status conference to
determine the status of his physical condition and because he
may be unable to proceed with this case without standby
counsel. Id. at p. 2. Plaintiff has not explained
how a status conference will help determine the status of his
physical condition. Further, Plaintiff is actively filing
motions and documents in this case and does not appear to be
unable to litigate this case due to his health. Plaintiff was
also provided with an opportunity to be represented by
Attorney Casey Arbenz on the contaminated water claims raised
in the Complaint, but Plaintiff declined Mr. Arbenz's
assistance. See Dkt. 11, 17. Plaintiff has not shown
“exceptional circumstances” exist in this case
which warrant the Court providing additional opportunities
for court-appointed counsel. See Rand v. Roland,
113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the
Court does not find a status conference is necessary at this
Plaintiff moves to consolidate his case with cases filed by
Special Commitment Center residents, Bettys and Urlacker.
See Dkt. 36, pp. 2-3. Plaintiff also references
other cases which raise similar issues to those raised in his
case. See id. (referencing cases which challenge
exposure to contaminated potable water and environmental
tobacco smoke). Under Local Rule 42(b), “[p]rior to
filing a motion to consolidate, the parties must meet and
confer and attempt to reach an agreement” regarding
consolidation. Here, Plaintiff has not shown he met and
conferred with Defendant regarding consolidation.
See Dkt. 36. Therefore, Plaintiff's request to
consolidate is denied.
caption of the Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Plaintiff
also states he is moving to conduct discovery and for expert
funding and the appointment of a special master or standby
lawyer. See Dkt. 36, p. 1. Plaintiff, however, fails
to provide any explanation regarding the requested relief.
Plaintiff must provide an adequate explanation for the relief
he seeks and must provide sufficient factual information for
the Court to consider his requests. As Plaintiff has not
provided any facts regarding his requests to conduct
discovery and for expert funding and the appointment of a
special master or standby lawyer, the Court declines to
consider the requested relief. Plaintiff may file new
motions. Each request for relief should be filed in a
separate motion and shall adequately explain the relief
requested and the facts supporting the relief.
above stated reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief (Dkt. 36) is denied.
Motion to Conduct Deposition (Dkt. 42)
April 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Conduct
Deposition, requesting the Court's permission to depose
Defendant and/or his alleged successor, Sjan Talbert. Dkt.
42. Plaintiff is a vexatious litigator. The Court has entered
several orders restricting Plaintiff's ability to file
IFP actions in the Western District of Washington.
See Dkt. 18-1 - 18-3. Pursuant to the April 2005
Case Management Order, “Plaintiff may not engage in
discovery without leave of court. To obtain leave of court he
must submit written discovery to the court for prior
approval.” See Dkt. 18-2, p. 4. Plaintiff has
not submitted written deposition questions or provided any
information regarding the information he intends to discover
during the proposed deposition(s). See Dkt. 42. It
is also not clear why Plaintiff would need to depose
non-party Mr. Talbert. As Plaintiff has not provided adequate
information for the Court to determine if deposing Defendant
and/or Mr. Talbert is necessary, Plaintiff's Motion to
Conduct Deposition is denied without prejudice.
Request for Sanctions (Dkt. 41)
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response to
Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order,
Plaintiff requests sanctions. See Dkt 41. It is not
clear who Plaintiff seeks to have sanctioned. See
id. (naming Assistant Attorney General Craig Mingay, the
Honorable Karen L. Strombom, and the Honorable Ronald B.
Leighton). Further, Plaintiff has not alleged facts which
show sanctions are warranted in this case. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11 (sanctions may be warranted ...