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.

Lyons v. Pacific County Clerk And Administrator

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

November 14, 2017

BILLY LYONS, Plaintiff,
v.
PACIFIC COUNTY CLERK AND ADMINISTRATOR, Defendant.

          ORDER [DKT. #S 36 AND 39]

          HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON JUDGE

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Lyons' Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #36] of the Court's Order [Dkt. #33] denying Plaintiff's Motion for the Denial of the Letter of July 14, 2011 [Dkt. #26]; and granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Dkt. #29]; and on Defendant Blauvelt's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #39].

         Blauvelt (an attorney) represented Lyons' opponent (Taft) in the 2012 Pacific County litigation that led to this case. Lyons lost. He did not appeal. Instead, he sued his own attorneys, the County administrator, and his opponent's attorney for a variety of claimed misdeeds. See Lyons v Pacific County Administrator, et al., Cause No. 16-cv-5256RBL.

         This Court dismissed Lyons' claims against his own attorneys (Williams and Doumit) [Dkt. #35 in that case] and then his claims against the Pacific County Administrator [Dkt. #54 in that case]. Lyons (twice) prematurely appealed the dismissal of his claims against his attorneys, and each time the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal because the orders were not final. [See Dkt. #s 47 and 60 in the 2016 case]. The Orders were not appealable because Lyons' claims against Blauvelt had not been adjudicated.

         Six months ago, Lyons sued the same parties, asserting the same claims, in this second federal case. The Court has already dismissed Lyons' claims against Williams and Pacific County [Dkt. #18], and Doumit [Dkt. #33], on res judicata grounds. Lyons has appealed [See Dkt. #37] at least one of this Court's prior Orders, which limits the Court's ability to grant the current pending motions:

         After an appeal, a District Court's ability to act on a matter is limited. The Rules do permit a district court to defer or deny a post-appeal motion, or to make indicative rulings, subject to a limited remand from the appellate court:

(a) Relief Pending Appeal. If a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion;
(2) deny the motion; or
(3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.
(b) Notice to the Court of Appeals. The movant must promptly notify the circuit clerk under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 if the district court states that it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue.

Fed R. Civ. P. 62.1; see also F.R.A.P. 12.1.

         Lyons' Motions for Reconsideration are DENIED, for the reasons articulated in Court's prior Orders [See Dkt. #33].

         Defendant Blauvelt has now moved for dismissal of Lyons' claims against him in this case (and in the prior one). Blauvelt argues[1] that Lyons has pled not and cannot plead a plausible claim against him as the attorney representing ...


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.