From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. Warner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Feb 1, 2016
CASE NO. 15-5298 RJB-KLS (W.D. Wash. Feb. 1, 2016)

Opinion

CASE NO. 15-5298 RJB-KLS

02-01-2016

DAVID MICHAEL AARON BAKER, Plaintiff, v. BERNARD EDWARD WARNER, and JEFFREY A. UTTECHT, Defendants.


ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom (Dkt. 46), Plaintiff's Objection to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 51), the Motion for Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication (Dkt. 52) filed by William Davis, and the Motion for Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication (Dkt. 60) filed by Kimothy Wynn. The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation, pleadings filed regarding the objections to the Report and Recommendation, the pleadings filed regarding Plaintiff's motion, and the remaining record.

In this civil rights case, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, claims his First Amendment rights were violated by Defendants' application of Washington Administrative Code ("WAC") § 137- 48-020, which restricts prisoner's ability to receive mail containing sexually explicit material. Dkt. 1-1. The Report and Recommendation recommends denial of several other inmates' motions to join the case and for denial of class certification. For the reasons provided below, the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 46) should be adopted.

I. FACTS

The background facts and procedural history are in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 46) and are adopted here.

Originally filed in Thurston County, Washington Superior Court, Plaintiff states in his Complaint that this action is intended as a "class action." Id. After the case was removed, several non-party inmates filed motions to join the case as "persons needed for just adjudication." Dkts. 17, 19, 21-36. Plaintiff has argued that this case is a "class action." Dkt. 42. The Report and Recommendation recommends denial of the motions for joinder. Dkt. 46. It further recommends denial of class certification. Id.

The Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that the regulation at issue "infringes on the rights of the class and our family members." Dkt. 51. He identifies the class as "being 17,000 inmates incarserated [sic] in Washington Department of Corrections." Id. He argues that they have common questions. Id. Plaintiff argues that certain of the parties that filed motions for joinder did, in fact, grieve the actions taken against them. Id. He asserts that "we do meet [Rule 23]" requirements. Id.

After the Report and Recommendation was filed, William Davis and Kimothy Wynn, other non-party inmates, filed Motions for Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication for 19. Dkts. 52 and 60. These pleadings are the same as or substantially similar as the Motion for Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication filed by the other non-party inmates. Dkts. 17, 19, 21-36.

II. DISCUSSION

A. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff files several pages of objections to the Report and Recommendation that largely echo arguments raised in the initial pleadings. His objections do not provide a basis to reject the Report and Recommendation.

Plaintiff argues that the Report and Recommendation improperly recommends denial of his motion for class certification (Dkt. 42). Dkt. 51. As stated in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff fails to make any of the required showings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in the pleadings he has filed. The recommendation to deny class certification is proper.

Plaintiff's arguments regarding joinder of the other inmates are substantially similar to those raised in his prior pleadings and are addressed in the Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 46) should be adopted.

B. MOTION FOR JOINDER FILED AFTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Motions for Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication (Dkts. 52 and 60), filed by William Davis and Kimothy Wynn, should be denied. The reasoning in the Report and Recommendation regarding the other motions for joinder applies (Dkt. 46, at 4-6) and is adopted here for the purposes of these motions (Dkts. 52 and 60).

III. ORDER


• The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 46) IS ADOPTED;

• All the Motions for Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication (Dkts. 17, 19, 21-36, 52 and 60) ARE DENIED;

• The Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 42) IS DENIED; and

• This case is re-referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom, all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.

Dated this 1st day of February, 2016.

/s/_________

ROBERT J. BRYAN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Baker v. Warner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Feb 1, 2016
CASE NO. 15-5298 RJB-KLS (W.D. Wash. Feb. 1, 2016)
Case details for

Baker v. Warner

Case Details

Full title:DAVID MICHAEL AARON BAKER, Plaintiff, v. BERNARD EDWARD WARNER, and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Feb 1, 2016

Citations

CASE NO. 15-5298 RJB-KLS (W.D. Wash. Feb. 1, 2016)