October 24, 2013
ANTHONY G. HERBERT, Plaintiff,
WALTER LOVELL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS
MARY ALICE THEILER, Chief Magistrate Judge.
This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the Court are plaintiff's motion for the Court to begin the discovery process, defendants' motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff's motion for a continuance of defendants' summary judgment motion. The Court, having reviewed the pending motions, and the balance of the record, does hereby find and ORDER as follows:
(1) Plaintiff's motion for the Court to begin the discovery process (Dkt. No. 32) is DENIED. Plaintiff asserts in the instant motion that he has not received an order from the Court concerning discovery and he asks the Court to clarify whether the discovery process has begun. The record reflects that the Court issued a pretrial scheduling order on May 17, 2013 which established a discovery deadline of August 14, 2013. (Dkt. No. 24.) A copy of that Order was mailed to plaintiff at the King County Correctional Facility (KCCF), plaintiff's address of record at that time, but it appears that plaintiff was actually at Western State Hospital (WSH) at the time the order was sent. (Dkt. No. 25.) In a letter received by the Clerk of Court on May 21, 2013, plaintiff advised that his address had changed and he requested that any orders sent to him at KCCF from May 13, 2013 to the date of the letter be re-sent to him at WSH. (Dkt. No. 25.) For reasons that aren't clear from the record, the pretrial scheduling order was apparently never re-sent to plaintiff at WSH.
While it is concerning that plaintiff apparently never received the Court's scheduling order, nothing in the record suggests that plaintiff's lack of information concerning scheduling deadlines inhibited his ability to obtain the discovery necessary to litigate this case. Plaintiff indicates in the instant motion that he served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on defendants in this case. He does not indicate what, if any, additional discovery is necessary. Similarly, plaintiff does not indicate in his recently filed motion requesting a continuance of defendants' summary judgment motion that additional discovery is required in order for him to adequately respond to defendants' motion. Because the discovery deadline previously established by the Court has passed, and because nothing in the record suggests that there is any need for additional discovery at this juncture, the Court declines to issue the order requested by plaintiff.
(2) Plaintiff's motion for a continuance of the summary judgment deadline (Dkt. No. 36) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file and serve any response to defendants' motion for summary judgment not later than November 18, 2013. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 33) is RENOTED for consideration on November 22, 2013.
(3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants, and to the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly.