Belmonte v. King County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01765
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 DAVID L. BELMONTE, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01765-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 v. 13 KING COUNTY et al., 14 Defendants. 15 On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff David L. Belmonte (who is also known as Dameas Shiruk 16 Duranzan and is proceeding pro se) initiated this action against Defendants, asserting various 17 violations of the United States and Washington constitutions. Dkt. No. 1 at 1–2. On October 30, 18 2024, the Clerk sent Mr. Belmonte a Notice of Filing Deficiency, which noted that Mr. Belmonte 19 did not pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and also did not 20 provide a certified copy of his prison trust account statement. Dkt. No. 2 at 1. The Clerk cautioned 21 Mr. Belmonte that failure to address these deficiencies “may affect the status of [his] case, 22 including dismissal of the action by the Court.” Id. This notice was sent to Mr. Belmonte’s address 23 on file at the King County Correctional Facility in Seattle, WA. Id. It was not returned as 24 1 undeliverable. 2 On December 11, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel issued a Report 3 and Recommendation (“R&R”) in this matter, recommending that the Court dismiss this action 4 without prejudice because Mr. Belmonte failed to address his filing deficiencies or otherwise

5 respond to the Notice of Filing Deficiency. Dkt. No. 4 at 1–2. The Clerk sent a copy of the R&R 6 to Mr. Belmonte at the King County Correctional Facility. Dkt. No. 5 at 1. This mail was returned 7 as undeliverable and “unable to forward” on December 17, 2024. Id. Mr. Belmonte therefore 8 appears to not have had any meaningful opportunity to raise objections to the R&R. 9 However, based on an independent review of the record, the Court nonetheless concurs 10 with Judge Christel that dismissal without prejudice is warranted because Mr. Belmonte has failed 11 to address his filing deficiencies or otherwise respond to the Notice of Filing Deficiency. 28 U.S.C. 12 § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150–52 (1985); see also 13 Keno v. Arizona, No. CV-16-00721-TUC-JGZ, 2018 WL 2387944, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 25, 2018) 14 (adopting report and recommendation after an independent review of the record despite

15 petitioner’s failure to provide an updated address). 16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 17 (1) The Court ADOPTS the R&R, Dkt. No. 4. 18 (2) This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or seek 19 leave to proceed IFP. 20 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Mr. Belmonte at his last known 21 address and to the Honorable David W. Christel. 22 Dated this 2nd day of January, 2025. A

23 Lauren King 24 United States District Judge