Johnston v. Williams

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JACOB ANDREW JOHNSTON, CASE NO. C25-5638 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 SWAIN WILLIAMS, 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David Christel’s Report 14 and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 12, recommending the Court dismiss pro se plaintiff 15 Jacob Johnston’s complaint in this case1 with prejudice for failure to state a plausible 16 claim. Johnston asserts that Washington Department of Corrections does not have 17 sociologists on staff, to the detriment of all prisoners. He has sued 329 defendants and 18 seeks $3 billion. 19 20 1 The Court recently dismissed another of Johnston’s cases, which sought a judicial 21 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 22 dismissed. 1 The R&R correctly concludes that Johnston has failed to state a plausible claim, 2 and that he lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of all incarcerated individuals in the

3 State. It recommends the Court dismiss the case and consider the dismissed case a 4 “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 5 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed 6 disposition to which a party has properly objected. It must modify or set aside any portion 7 of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district 8 judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further

9 evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 72(b)(3). 11 A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings 12 and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In providing for a de novo 13 determination, Congress “intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the

14 exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings 15 and recommendations.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal 16 quotation marks omitted). Thus, the district court is required only to indicate that it 17 reviewed the record de novo and found no merit to the objections in order to summarily 18 adopt the R&R’s analysis. United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). The

19 district court is not obligated to “expressly address” every objection. Id. at 437. 20 Johnston has not objected to the R&R, but instead filed a proposed amended 21 complaint reiterating why sociologists are important. 22 1 Johnston’s claim is not plausible and there is nothing he could add to make it so. 2 The R&R is ADOPTED, and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave

3 to amend. This dismissal is a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 4 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated this 7th day of October, 2025. A 7 8 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 9 United S tates District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22