United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF GIBSON
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff James Franklin Gibson's ("Gibson") motion to more clearly explain and clarify the timeliness and venue aspects of Plaintiffs' complaint (Dkt. 10). Based on a thorough reading of this motion, Gibson is not asking the Court for a ruling. However, he does appear to seek amendment of the complaint so that he may clarify the timeliness and venue aspects as they relate to him. Therefore, the Court deems Gibson's motion as a motion to amend the complaint. The Court has considered the pleadings filed with respect to this motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion and sua sponta dismisses Gibson and his claims for the reasons stated herein.
Gibson's civil rights issues in this case have already been adjudicated by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. See Gibson v. LaHood, C13-5870 (RBL), Dkt. 1-1 (Proposed Complaint), and Dkt. 7 (Amended Complaint joining Gibson as a co-plaintiff in this case). On October 22, 2013, Judge Leighton denied Gibson's motion to proceed IFP in his suit against Defendant Roy LaHood ("LaHood"), finding that his proposed complaint was time barred, in the wrong venue, and lacked merit. See Gibson v. LaHood, C 13-5870 (RBL), Dkt. 6 at 2 ( citing Triati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (a court should "deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the complaint that the action is frivolous and without merit"), and Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (a complaint is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact). On November 11, 2013, Judge Leighton denied Gibson's motion for reconsideration of his application to proceed in forma pauperis and his motion to consolidate his case with the instant case, again finding Gibson's claims stale, time barred and legally frivolous. Gibson v. Lahood, C13-5870(RBL), Dkt. 9.
Judge Leighton's orders control and constitute final orders. Therefore, Gibson is dismissed as a plaintiff from this action and his motion to amend the complaint is rendered moot, as his clarifications regarding timeliness and venue would not permit this Court to decide issues that have already been adjudicated by Judge Leighton. If Gibson wishes to appeal Judge Leighton's decision, he may attempt to do so. However, it appears that the time for filing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit has run.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Gibson's motion to amend (Dkt. 10) is DENIED and Gibson and his claims ...