Case 3:15-cv-05483-BHS Document 10 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA DONALD ISAAC JOHNSON, V. Plaintiff, JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE CASE NUMBER: C15-5483 BHS STATE OF WASHINGTON Defendant. a Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict. iri Decision by Court. This action came to consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered. The Court does hereby find and order as follows: 1. The R&R is ADOPTED; and 2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENTED, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal shall count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Dated this 5th day of November, 15. William M. McCool Clerk s/gavle M Riekena Deputy Clerk Le
Case 3:15-cv-05483-BHS Document 9 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 3 DONALD ISAAC JOHNSON, 4 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C15-5483 BHS 5 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT V. AND RECOMMENDATION 6 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 7 8 Defendant. This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") 10 of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 7. The Court 11 having considered the R&R and the remaining record, and no objections having been 12 filed, does hereby find and order as follows: 13 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; and 14 (2) Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, Plaintiff's 15 complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice on the grounds that it is frivolous, 16 malicious, and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal shall 17 count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). 18 Dated this 4th day November, 15. 19 BE J H. SETTLE 21 United States District Judge ORDER
Case 3:15-cv-05483-BHS Document 7 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 11 12 13 14 15 DONALD ISAAC JOHNSON, Plaintiff V. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant. CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05483-RBL-DWC REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Noting Date: October 30, 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 Plaintiff Donald Isaac Johnson filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 pro Se. Dkt. 1-1. His Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) remains pending. Dkt. 5. Plaintiff alleges he was unlawfully charged and convicted by the State of Washington in Washington Court of Appeals Case No. 44194-2-I1 (Pierce County Superior Court Case No. 12-1-01235-2, the "Pierce County Case"). Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff claims to be unlawfully imprisoned pursuant to that conviction, and seeks twenty-five million dollars and one cent from the State of Washington. Id. at 3-4, 6. Plaintiffs habeas corpus before this Court challenging his conviction in the Pierce County Case was dismissed with prejudice on September 28, 15. See Dkt. 15, 16 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION -1
Case 3:15-cv-05483-BHS Document 7 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 4 1 in Case No. 15-5435. Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this Court should not deny his 2 Application to Proceed 1FF. Dkt. 6. 3 DISCUSSION 4 A review of Plaintiff's litigation history shows on three previous occasions, he obtained 5 in forma pauperis status and sought to challenge the on-going state court proceedings and 6 conviction in the Pierce County Case: (1) Johnson v. Gildehaus, Case No. 12-5818 RBL-KLS; 7 (2) Johnson v. State of Washington, Case No. 12-5839 BHS-KLS; and (3) Johnson v. State of 8 Washington, Case No. 12-5864 RBL-JRC.' In a fourth filing before this Court, in Johnson v. 9 Monroe Correctional Complex, Case No. 13-5167 RBL-JRC, Plaintiff again attempted to 10 challenge his conviction in the Pierce County Case and the Court denied Plaintiff's application to 11 proceed informapauperis. Dkts. 3 and 5 in Case No. 13-5 167. The Court also found his 12 repetitive filings On the same issue vexatious and malicious, and warned Plaintiff that further 13 improper filings could result in sanctions (including monetary fines, dismissal of actions, and 14 possibly a bar order preventing further filings). Dkts. 3 and 5 in Case No. 13-5167. The Court 15 dismissed Case No. 13-5167 without prejudice to allow Plaintiff's first Petition for writ of 16 habeas corpus (Plaintiff's "First Petition," Johnson v. Monroe Correctional Complex, Case No. 17 13-5008 RBL-JRC) to proceed. Dkts. 3 and 5 in Case No. 13-5167. 18 Plaintiff's First Petition was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. 16 in Case 19 No. 13-5008. Plaintiff then filed a second Petition for writ of habeas corpus in June 15 21 In Case No. 12-5818 and Case No. 12-5839, Plaintiff sought to challenge the on-going 23 criminal proceedings in the Pierce County Case. And in Case No. 12-5864, Plaintiff sought release from imprisonment and dismissal of all pending criminal charges related to the Pierce 24 County Case. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION -2
Case 3:15-cv-05483-BHS Document 7 Filed 10/13/15 Page 3 of 4 1 ("Second Petition"), which was dismissed with prejudice on September 28, 15. See Johnson v. 2 Gilbert, Case No. 15-5435 RBL-KLS. 3 On July 10, 15, Plaintiff filed this action and an identical action in Johnson v. State of 4 Washington, Case No. 15-5488-RJB. In Case No. 15-5488, the Court denied Plaintiff's 5 application to proceed informapauperis on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous, 6 malicious and fails to state a claim. Dkt. 9 in Case No. 15-5488. 7 Here, the Court reiterates, Plaintiff cannot bring a 1983 action for damages related to 8 his imprisonment unless and until his state court judgment has been invalidated, expunged, or 9 otherwise impugned. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). This has not occurred 10 and Plaintiff's Second Petition was dismissed with prejudice. See Johnson v. Gilbert, Case No. 11 15-5435. Because he has been repeatedly advised and was warned that further filings of this 12 nature could result in sanctions including monetary fines, dismissal of actions, and possibly a bar 13 order preventing further filings, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why the Court should not 14 deny his Application to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's Order. The Court 15 finds Plaintiff's Complaint is frivolous, malicious, and fails to state a claim upon which relief 16 may be granted. 17 CONCLUSION 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends Plaintiff's Application to Proceed IFP be 19 denied on the grounds that his Complaint is frivolous, malicious, and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and the dismissal count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). See 21 O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir.08) (when denial of a motion to proceed IFP is "on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 23 relief may be granted, such a complaint is 'dismissed' for purposes of 1915(g)"). 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION -3
Case 3:15-cv-05483-BHS Document 7 Filed 10/13/15 Page 4 of 4 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 2 Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report to file written 3 objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those 4 objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas yarn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time 5 limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on October 6 30, 15 as noted in the caption. 7 Dated this 13 day of October, 15. 8 10 ~& David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION -4