Hagos v. Washington State Department of Social Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DANIEL TEKLEMARIAM HAGOS, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00617-LK Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION 13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold, recommending the dismissal of pro se Plaintiff Daniel Teklemariam Hagos’ claims with prejudice and without leave to amend, and denial of Mr. Hagos’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 4; see Dkt. Nos. 1, 1-1. Having reviewed the R&R, Mr. Hagos’ objections to the R&R,1 the remaining record, and the applicable law, the Court finds and ORDERS as follows: 1 The Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). In 1. The Court OVERRULES Mr. Hagos’ objections and ADOPTS the Report and 2 Recommendation, Dkt. No. 4.

3 2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend, for failure to state a 4 claim upon which relief can be granted.

5 3. Mr. Hagos’ motion to proceed IFP is denied, Dkt. No. 1. “Because [Mr. Hagos] has 6 incurred at least three ‘strikes,’ [he] is barred from proceeding IFP unless he shows he [i]s 7 ‘under imminent danger of serious physical injury[.]’” Hagos v. Moreno, No. 2:22-CV- 8 01862-BHS-JRC, 2023 WL 2956598, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 17, 2023) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 9 § 1915(g)), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 2535209 (W.D. Wash. Mar.

10 16, 2023). Indeed, Mr. Hagos recently accumulated three such strikes in the span of 11 approximately two weeks. See Hagos v. Tang, No. 2:23-CV-00581-LK, 2023 WL 12 4078214, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 16, 2023); Hagos v. Goodman, No. C23-433-RSL-DWC, 13 2023 WL 3821733, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 5, 2023); Hagos v. Smith, No. 2:23-CV-528- 14 RJB-DWC, 2023 WL 3739934, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 31, 2023). And Mr. Hagos has not 15 made the requisite showing in this case. See generally Dkt. No. 1-1.

16 4. This dismissal constitutes a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

17 5. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Mr. Hagos at his last known address 18 and to Judge Leupold.

19 Dated this 10th day of July, 2023.

20 A 21 Lauren King United States District Judge this case, Mr. Hagos’ objections are comprised of several lines of vague legal analysis handwritten atop the first page of a copy of Judge Leupold’s R&R, depriving the Court of the ability to discern which portions of the R&R or specified proposed findings or recommendations he finds objectionable. Dkt. No. 5 at 1.