Johnston v. Williams

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA JACOB ANDREW JOHNSTON, CASE NO. C25-5638 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER v. Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David Christel’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 12, recommending the Court dismiss pro se plaintiff Jacob Johnston’s complaint in this case1 with prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim. Johnston asserts that Washington Department of Corrections does not have sociologists on staff, to the detriment of all prisoners. He has sued 329 defendants and seeks $3 billion. 1 The Court recently dismissed another of Johnston’s cases, which sought a judicial decree outlawing gangs. See Johnston v. Department of Justice, No. C25-1382 BHS at Dkt. 12. Johnston has filed a dozen cases in this District in the past two years. All but this one have been dismissed. The R&R correctly concludes that Johnston has failed to state a plausible claim, and that he lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of all incarcerated individuals in the

State. It recommends the Court dismiss the case and consider the dismissed case a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed disposition to which a party has properly objected. It must modify or set aside any portion of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 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 proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In 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). Thus, the district court is required only to indicate that it reviewed the record de novo and found no merit to the objections in order to summarily adopt the R&R’s analysis. United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). The

district court is not obligated to “expressly address” every objection. Id. at 437. Johnston has not objected to the R&R, but instead filed a proposed amended complaint reiterating why sociologists are important. Johnston’s claim is not plausible and there is nothing he could add to make it so. The R&R is ADOPTED, and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave

to amend. This dismissal is a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. Dated this 7th day of October, 2025. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United S tates District Judge