Simpson v. State of Washington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA RICHARD SIMPSON, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05545-BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, 11 Defendant.

13 THIS MATTER is before the court on Magistrate Judge Leupold’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 7, recommending the Court deny pro se plaintiff Richard Simpson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, as to the bulk of the defendants he has named. It recommends that the Court dismiss his complaint against those defendants without prejudice, for failure to state a plausible claim, even after he filed an amended complaint, Dkt. 6, in response to Judge Leupold’s prior Order, Dkt. 4.

19 The R&R also recommends that the Court grant Simpson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis as to his claims against defendant Lacey police officer Aaron Pruneda, concluding that Simpson has stated a plausible § 1983 claim against him.

1 Simpson objects to the R&R, arguing among other things that prosecutorial immunity is not in the Constitution, but was “fabricated” by judges, many of whom were formerly prosecutors. He asserts that the legal system is in disarray and horribly corrupt.

4 Dkt. 8 at 4–6.

5 “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party properly objects when the party files “specific written objections” to the report and recommendation as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2).

11 “[I]n providing for a de novo determination . . . Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, when a district court adopts a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court is required to merely “indicate[] that it reviewed the record de novo, found no merit to . . . [the] objections, and summarily adopt[] the magistrate judge’s analysis in [the] report and recommendation.” United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023).

19 In so doing, district courts are “not obligated to explicitly address [the] objections.” Id. at 437.

21 The Court has considered the R&R and Simpson’s objections to it, and it agrees with the R&R. Therefore, the R&R is ADOPTED. Simpson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and his complaint against defendants State of Washington, the Washington State Attorney General’s Office, the Thurston County Prosecutor’s Office, the Lewis County Superior Court, Providence Centralia Hospital, the City of Lacey Police department, Yvonne Nageotte, and Nageotte, Nageotte & Nageotte, P.C., are DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to further amend, for failure to state a plausible claim. Simpson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on his claim against defendant Corporal Aaron Pruneda is GRANTED, as that claim is plausible.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated this 22 day of September, 2023.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge