Stach v. Larson et al
Filing
8
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, by Judge Richard A Jones. (Copy sent to Plaintiff) (JS)
<![CDATA[
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
STACEY RAY STACH,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
CASE NO. C12-1521RAJ
v.
ORDER
BRENDA J. LARSON, et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
This matter comes before the court on a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
15
from the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge. Dkt. # 4. The
16
R&R recommends that the court DISMISS this case because Plaintiff has neither paid the
17
filing fee nor submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
18
Plaintiff has responded to the R&R not with objections, but with a series of filings
19
that point out that he has another case pending in this District. Stach v. Elfo, No. 12-
20
1803RSL. He also makes repeated reference to “Case No: 08-1-007668-9,” which the
21
court can only assume is a state court case, although the record does not reveal which
22
state court. Plaintiff appears to be attempting to make filings in the state court case in
23
federal court. One of his filings includes an application for court-appointed counsel
24
(Dkt. # 5) that suggests that Plaintiff believes he has already been granted in forma
25
pauperis status, perhaps in the state court case.
26
27
28
ORDER – 1
1
Plaintiff’s filings are difficult to comprehend, but none of them acknowledge his
2
failure to pay the filing fee or suggest that he has any intent to file a motion to proceed in
3
forma pauperis in this case. For that reason, the court ADOPTS the R&R and directs the
4
clerk to dismiss this case without prejudice.
5
DATED this 28th day of November, 2012.
6
A
7
8
9
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Court Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
