Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Irby v. State

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

October 12, 2017

TERRANCE JON IRBY, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO CORRECT

          J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge

         This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636 (b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4.

         Plaintiff requests that the Court strike his motion for judgment on the pleadings and that he be allowed to correct his current complaint. Because the motion to strike is unopposed, the Court grants it. In addition, because plaintiff has filed so many pleadings, defendants are confused about which complaint is the operative complaint in this case. The Court understands the defendants' confusion. Therefore, the Court grants plaintiff's motion to correct and notes that the complaint attached to his motion (Dkt. 178 at 1-30) is the operative complaint in this case.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff originally filed this action in 2015. Dkt. 1. In August of 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. 133. Subsequently, after filing an amended complaint and with permission of the Court, he filed a second amended complaint. Dkt. 165. He filed a “corrected” second amended complaint shortly thereafter. Dkt. 167. Later, he filed a motion requesting the Court strike the motion for judgment on the pleadings in light of his newly amended complaint. Dkt. 177. The same day, he filed a motion to again correct his complaint. Dkt. 178. One week later, he filed another motion to strike and another motion to correct. Dkts. 180, 182. Defendants responded, stating they do not oppose the motion to strike and ask that the Court clarify, in light of the numerous pleadings, which complaint is the operative complaint in this case. Dkts. 184, 185, 186, 187.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Motion to Strike

         Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike his motion for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. 177. Noting that defendants do not oppose this motion, the Court grants it. The Clerk is instructed to strike plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 133). The Court also denies plaintiff's second motion to strike (Dkt. 180) as duplicative.

         II. Motion to Correct Plaintiff's “Corrected Second Amended Complaint”

         Plaintiff also asks the Court's permission to correct his “corrected second amended complaint.” As a matter of course, a party may amend its pleading once within 21 days of serving it or, if it is a pleading requires a response, within 21 days after service of the response. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1). In all other cases, “a party may amend its pleading only with . . . the court's leave.” Id. (a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id.

         Here, plaintiff requests permission to correct several typographical errors. However, he has requested this correction in a convoluted manner. See Dkts. 165, 167, 178, 182; see also Dkts. 184, 185, 186, 187. The Court agrees with defendants that plaintiff's various filings are causing greater confusion than clarity. In the interests of justice, to properly put defendants on notice of plaintiff's claims, the Court grants plaintiff's motion to correct his corrected second amended complaint (Dkt. 178). The operative complaint is therefore the complaint filed with plaintiff's motion to correct (Dkt. 178 at 1-30). The Clerk is instructed to docket that complaint (Dkt. 178 at 1-30) as plaintiff's third amended complaint. In light of this amended complaint, defendants may file supplemental answers to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 100) on or before November 13, 2017.

         Further, plaintiff is reminded he may not amend or correct his complaint further without leave of the Court. He is also instructed that the Court will not look favorably on further requests to amend or correct his complaint unless there are substantive reasons for doing so.

         Finally, the Court denies plaintiff's second motion to correct ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.