Hagos v. Tang

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE TEKLEMARIAM DANIEL HAGOS, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00581-LK Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION 13 TANG, et al., 14 Defendants.

16 This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L.

17 Peterson’s Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 9. Mr. Hagos filed no objections. Having reviewed this document, the remaining record, and the applicable law, the Court finds and ORDERS as follows: 20 1. The Court ADOPTS Judge Peterson’s Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 9, and 21 DISMISSES without prejudice Mr. Hagos’ amended complaint, Dkt. No. 8, for failure 22 to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

23 2. This dismissal constitutes a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In addition, “[b]ecause 24 [Mr. Hagos] has incurred at least three ‘strikes,’ [he] is barred from proceeding IFP 1 unless he shows he [i]s ‘under imminent danger of serious physical injury[.]’” See 2 Hagos v. Moreno, No. 2:22-CV-01862-BHS-JRC, 2023 WL 2956598, at *2 (W.D.

3 Wash. Feb. 17, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 2535209 (W.D.

4 Wash. Mar. 16, 2023) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and citing Hagos v. Munoz, et al., 5 No. 2:21-cv-01640-JLR, Dkt. Nos. 14, 16 (W.D. Wash.) (case dismissed for failure to 6 state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Hagos v. Jail Health Staff, et al., 2:22- 7 cv-00499-JCC, Dkt. Nos. 12, 13 (W.D. Wash.) (case dismissed for failure to state a 8 cognizable claim for relief); Hagos v. King Cnty. Superior Ct., 2:22-cv-00928-JCC, 9 Dkt. No. 9 (W.D. Wash.) (case dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim 10 upon which relief may be granted)).

11 The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Mr. Hagos at his last known address and to Judge Peterson.

14 Dated this 16th day of June, 2023.

15 A 16 Lauren King United States District Judge