Wright v. State of Washington

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO MATTHEW WRIGHT, CASE NO. C20-1452-JCC Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.

Coughenour, United States District Judge: This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 50) of the Court’s order (Dkt. No. 48) adopting the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Michelle Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 41). Plaintiff asserts the Court committed manifest error1 when it (a) dismissed Plaintiff’s retaliation claim with prejudice, (b) determined that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous even though Plaintiff never sought in forma pauperis treatment from the Court, and (c) referred to Plaintiff rather than Defendants as the party seeking a frivolousness determination on Plaintiff’s state law claims. (Dkt. No. 50 at 2–3.)

1 While motions for reconsideration are disfavored, the Court will entertain them upon a showing of manifest error. LCR 7(h)(1).

1 The Court declines to reconsider whether Plaintiff’s retaliation claim should be dismissed with or without prejudice. Judge Peterson recommended dismissal with prejudice. (See Dkt. No. 41 at 28, 40.) Defendant did not object to this recommendation. (See generally Dkt. No. 43.)

4 While this Court’s review of an R&R is de novo, it is nevertheless limited to those portions of an R&R to which a party properly objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). To do otherwise would not serve the interest of “judicial economy” upon which the Magistrates Act is based. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985).

8 As to the issue of frivolousness, the Court clarifies that its finding on Plaintiff’s federal claims is for purposes of RCW 4.24.430—not the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That being said, the Court must correct the record. Defendants—not Plaintiff—sought this determination. (See Dkt. No. 30 at 22–24).2 Docket Number 48, page 4, lines 10–16 is, therefore, MODIFIED as follows: 13 Instead, Plaintiffs Defendants ask the Court to reach the merits of those claims in the hope that the Court will also find them frivolous. (Id. at 3.) Such a finding 14 would, conclusively, bar Plaintiff from attaining filing fee waivers for future suits filed in Washington Courts. (Id. at 3 (citing RCW 4.24.430).) The Court declines Plaintiff’s Defendants’ request. Resolution of Plaintiff’s state law claims and their resulting impact on his ability to attain fee waivers in Washington Courts is an issue best left to a Washington Court. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. 17 Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (state law decisions should be avoided “as matter of comity”).

To summarize, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration but MODIFIES its prior order as indicated above to correct a scrivener’s error.

DATED this 23rd day of March 2022.

21 Ravi Subramanian Clerk of Court s/Sandra Rawski 23 Deputy Clerk The distinction is ultimately immaterial—the Court’s order contained a scrivener’s error, nothing more.