Opinion
Case No. C10-1724RSL
09-29-2011
LARRY HEGGEM, Plaintiff, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, et al, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge. Dkt. # 45. Plaintiff filed a number of documents after the Report and Recommendation issued, but none of them addresses the factual and legal deficiencies identified by Judge Donohue. Most simply restate plaintiff's denial of medical care claim and/or provide more recent examples of injuries and conditions that have gone untreated. See Dkt. # 48, 50, 54, and 57. Judge Donohue already gave plaintiff two opportunities to amend his complaint to correct fatal deficiencies in the denial of medical care claim: plaintiff was unable to do so in a timely manner, and the additional allegations contained in these late-filed documents, even if considered on substantively, cannot save the Third Amended Complaint.
Some of plaintiff's recent submissions appear to raise new causes of action. Docket # 58, for example, contains an assertion that "they illegally returned my U.S. mail to your court."Although prison programs or policies that hinder an inmate's efforts to pursue a legal claim may violate the constitutional right of access to the courts (see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996)), such a claim was not properly asserted in this litigation. Plaintiff may choose to file a new lawsuit regarding the jail's mail policies, but he cannot insert a new claim under this cause number simply by mentioning it in one of his many post-pleading submissions.
The docket in this matter indicates that at least one order (Dkt. # 53) was returned by the jail with a notation of "Paper Restriction." See Dkt. # 56.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the remainder of the record, the Court does hereby find and ORDER:
(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.
(2) Plaintiff's third amended complaint (Dkt. # 30) and this action are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
(3) Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief (Dkt. # 44, 48, 50, and 57) are STRICKEN as moot.
(4) The Clerk is directed to terminate this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), to count this as a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
ROBERT S. LASNIK
United States District Judge