December 12, 2013
ROB LEAR, Plaintiff,
SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiff Rob Lear's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Mot. (Dkt. # 66).) Mr. Lear is proceeding pro se in this case. He has sued the Seattle Housing Authority ("SHA"), the City of Seattle, and numerous other defendants. ( See Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 46).) He alleges civil conspiracy, industrial espionage, housing discrimination, and other causes of action, claiming that he was "snatched. Kidnapped. Entrapped. Ensnared." ( Id. at 12.) He alleges numerous instances of harm directed at him by Defendants. ( Id. at 12-27.) All of Mr. Lear's claims appear to stem from an alleged history of mistreatment that started in 1996 when Mr. Lear began residing in lowincome housing provided by the SHA. ( See generally Am. Compl.)
On this motion, Mr. Lear asks the court to enter summary judgment in his favor on his claim of civil conspiracy. However, Mr. Lear has produced very little evidence or coherent legal argument in support of his motion. ( See Mot.) Mr. Lear claims that he is entitled to summary judgment because the SHA intends to use his sister as a witness in this case. ( See Mot. at 1.) He claims that his sister has "evil intent, " as evidenced by the fact that she has not distributed to Mr. Lear the proceeds of their parents' will. ( Id. at 1-2.) Mr. Lear also alleges that his sister caused their father's death and now "persecutes [him] under the pretense that [he] was mean to her when she was a child." ( Id. ) Mr. Lear claims that the SHA's decision to use his sister as a witness demonstrates that the SHA is involved in a conspiracy against him. ( See id. ) As evidence, he submits a copy of his parents' will. ( See id. at 4.)
Summary judgment is appropriate only if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, demonstrates "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Galen v. Cnty. of L.A., 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he or she is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The court is "required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the [non-moving] party." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).
Mr. Lear has come nowhere close to showing that he is entitled to summary judgment. Specifically, he has not produced nearly enough evidence for the court to conclude that he has a viable claim for civil conspiracy against any of the defendants remaining in this case. The court cannot infer from Mr. Lear's parents' will or from his statements about its implications that there are no genuine disputes of material fact with respect to his civil conspiracy claim or that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Mr. Lear's motion for summary judgment is DENIED (Dkt. # 66).