Wright v. State of Washington

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO 8 MATTHEW WRIGHT, CASE NO. C20-1452-JCC 9 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 10 v. 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 15 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 17 50) of the Court’s order (Dkt. No. 48) adopting the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of the 18 Honorable Michelle Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 41). Plaintiff asserts the 19 Court committed manifest error1 when it (a) dismissed Plaintiff’s retaliation claim with 20 prejudice, (b) determined that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous even though Plaintiff never 21 sought in forma pauperis treatment from the Court, and (c) referred to Plaintiff rather than 22 Defendants as the party seeking a frivolousness determination on Plaintiff’s state law claims. 23 (Dkt. No. 50 at 2–3.) 24 25 1 While motions for reconsideration are disfavored, the Court will entertain them upon a 26 showing of manifest error. LCR 7(h)(1). 1 The Court declines to reconsider whether Plaintiff’s retaliation claim should be dismissed 2 with or without prejudice. Judge Peterson recommended dismissal with prejudice. (See Dkt. No. 3 41 at 28, 40.) Defendant did not object to this recommendation. (See generally Dkt. No. 43.) 4 While this Court’s review of an R&R is de novo, it is nevertheless limited to those portions of an 5 R&R to which a party properly objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). To 6 do otherwise would not serve the interest of “judicial economy” upon which the Magistrates Act 7 is based. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). 8 As to the issue of frivolousness, the Court clarifies that its finding on Plaintiff’s federal 9 claims is for purposes of RCW 4.24.430—not the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That being said, 10 the Court must correct the record. Defendants—not Plaintiff—sought this determination. (See 11 Dkt. No. 30 at 22–24).2 Docket Number 48, page 4, lines 10–16 is, therefore, MODIFIED as 12 follows: 13 Instead, Plaintiffs Defendants ask the Court to reach the merits of those claims in the hope that the Court will also find them frivolous. (Id. at 3.) Such a finding 14 would, conclusively, bar Plaintiff from attaining filing fee waivers for future suits filed in Washington Courts. (Id. at 3 (citing RCW 4.24.430).) The Court declines 15 Plaintiff’s Defendants’ request. Resolution of Plaintiff’s state law claims and their resulting impact on his ability to attain fee waivers in Washington Courts is 16 an issue best left to a Washington Court. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. 17 Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (state law decisions should be avoided “as matter of comity”). 18 To summarize, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration but MODIFIES 19 its prior order as indicated above to correct a scrivener’s error. 20 DATED this 23rd day of March 2022. 21 Ravi Subramanian Clerk of Court 22 s/Sandra Rawski 23 Deputy Clerk 24

25 2 The distinction is ultimately immaterial—the Court’s order contained a scrivener’s 26 error, nothing more.