Michael David John Chenoweth v. State of Washington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA MICHAEL DAVID JOHN CHENOWETH, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05485-TSZ-GJL Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 10 v. Noting Date: December 5, 2025 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 12 Defendant.

13 This case has been referred to the Court by the District Court. On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff Michael D.J. Chenoweth, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

15 Dkt. 1. After being informed of his filing deficiencies related to the filing of a motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) or payment of the filing fee, Plaintiff filed an IFP Motion and Proposed Complaint on August 8, 2025. See Dkt. 7, 7-2.

18 On August 22, 2025, the Court screened the Proposed Complaint and issued an Order declining to serve the Proposed Complaint and granting leave to file an amended pleading by September 22, 2025. See Dkt. 9. Rather than file an amended pleading, on August 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion that stated, in full, “Request for temporary release and 6 months extension of time to amend?” Dkt. 12.

1 On October 6, 2025, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff’s request for temporary release and granting his request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 16.

3 The Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by November 7, 2025, and re-noted the IFP Motion for the same date. Id. The Court also warned that failure to timely file an amended complaint or adequately address the issues raised by the Court would result in the Court recommending dismissal of this action. Id.; see also Dkt. 9.

7 To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order. He has not filed a response to the October 6, 2025, Order or filed an amended complaint. Further, as discussed in the Order, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the Complaint. See Dkts, 9, 16. Therefore, the Court recommends this case be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (Dkt. 7) should be DENIED as moot.

12 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on December 5, 2025, as noted in the caption.

20 Dated this 20th day of November, 2025.

A 23 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge