United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARINGS
KAREN L. STROMBOM, Magistrate Judge.
This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Local Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The case is before the undersigned for consideration of Plaintiff's motion to hear all future motions telephonically and his motion to amend the complaint. Dkt. 14 and 16.
A. Telephonic hearings.
Plaintiff's first motion is a motion for telephonic hearing on all future motions. Dkt. 14. Local Civil Rule 7(b)(4) states:
Unless otherwise ordered by the court, all motions will be decided by the court without oral argument. Counsel shall not appear on the date the motion is noted unless directed by the court. A party desiring oral argument shall so indicate by including the words "ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED" in the caption of its motion or responsive memorandum. If a request for oral argument is granted, the clerk will notify the parties of the date and time for argument.
Plaintiff states that he is incarcerated and unable to call the court or be present for hearings. Dkt. 14. But a party does not need to be present for the court to rule on pending motions. Mr. White provides no reason for any deviation from the normal course of business. The undersigned denies Mr. White's motion for telephonic hearings.
B. Amendment of the complaint.
Mr. White's second motion is a request to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 16. Defendants oppose Mr. White's motion. Dkt. 18. The defendants in the action are Kimberly Johansson and Bernie Warner. Dkt. 5. While plaintiff nominally names the Washington State Department of Corrections in the caption, in the body of the compliant he has added "c/o Bernie Warner Secretary of DOC" whom he then names as a defendant in both his official and personal capacity. Dkt. 5, p. 2.
Plaintiff filed this action alleging that funds were improperly taken from him to satisfy costs of community supervision. Dkt. 5, pp. 3-4. The funds were assessed against him once in October of 2001 and again in July of 2010. Dkt. 5, p. 3. The first assessment was for two debts, one for $620 and one for $900.72. Dkt. 5, p. 3, ¶ 21. Mr. White states that the second assessment was for $220. Dkt. 5, p. 3 ¶ 22.
In the complaint Mr. White says that when the Department of Corrections collected $42.99 cents from him on an undisclosed date he notified defendant Johansson that there was an error and he states that she refused to correct the error. Dkt. 5, p. 4. The documents attached to the complaint show plaintiff sending a letter of inquiry regarding his $220 dollar debt on September 5, 2011. Dkt. 5, p. 39. Defendant Johansson responded September 12, 2011. Dkt. 5. p. 41.
On May 16, 2014 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that is noted for consideration June, 20, 2014. Dkt. 9. Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint over two months later on August 28, 2014. Dkt. 16.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) addresses amendment of the complaint ...