Scott
Scott v. Seling
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Richard Roy Scott appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action sua sponte for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. 813 F.2d 986 , 991 (9th Cir.1987), and we vacate and remand.
Scott, who is civilly committed as a sexually violent predator, brought claims based on the conditions of confinement in Washington’s Special Commitment Center (“SCC”). The district court dismissed Scott’s claims relating to property restrictions on the theory that Scott could add his complaints to ongoing litigation in Turay v. Seling, No. C91-0664 (WD.Wash.) and Sharp v. Seling, No. C94-0121 (WD.Wash.). It appears that the district court dismissed Scott’s claim of inadequate medical care on the same basis. Taking judicial notice of the subsequent district court order in Sharp v. Seling denying Scott’s motion for consolidation, filed April 30, 2004, see Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128 , 1129 n. 1 (9th Cir.1995), we vacate and remand to the district court to reconsider whether dismissal of these claims is appropriate in light of the Sharp court’s denial of consolidation.