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.

Longshore v. Sinclair

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

December 11, 2017

CHARLES S LONGSHORE, KEITH L CLOSSON, Plaintiffs,
v.
STEPHEN SINCLAIR, Defendant.

          ORDER

          David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiffs Charles S. Longshore and Keith L. Closson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. There are currently seven Motions pending before the Court. Dkt. 6, 29, 49, 63, 71, 72, 76.[1] The Court has reviewed the relevant record and directs Plaintiff Longshore to file an amended complaint on or before January 10, 2018. The Court also: (1) denies Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of the Severance Issue (Dkt. 63), and Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Counsel (Dkt. 6), Motion for Order Granting Privileged Correspondence Status to Co-Plaintiffs (Dkt. 29), Joint Motion to Appoint Expert in this Case (Dkt. 49), Motion for Pretrial Scheduling Order and Expedited Initial Disclosures and Request for Teleconference with Court (Dkt. 71), and Motion for Order Directing Mediation to Settle Suit (Dkt. 76); and (2) grants Plaintiff Longshore's Motion to Regenerate ECFs No. 43-62 as not Received or Served (Dkt. 72).

         I. Background

         On October 20, 2017, the Court directed the parties to show cause why this case should not be severed. Dkt. 52. Plaintiff Closson filed a Notice of Dismissal on November 14, 2017. Dkt. 70. The Court has considered Plaintiff Closson's Notice of Dismissal, and has recommended the claims alleged by Plaintiff Closson be dismissed from this case without prejudice.

         II. Order to Amend

         The operative Complaint in this case contains claims alleged by both Plaintiffs Closson and Longshore. See Dkt. 17. As the Court has recommended Plaintiff Closson be dismissed from this case, the Court directs Plaintiff Longshore to file an amended complaint containing only his allegations of constitutional violations related to the use of shared electric razors by inmates housed in restrictive housing units. The amended complaint shall not contain any allegations related to Plaintiff Closson or any other inmate.

         Plaintiff Longshore must file an amended complaint and within the amended complaint, he must write a short, plain statement telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff Longshore believes was violated; (2) the name of the person who violated the right; (3) exactly what the individual did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of the individual is connected to the violation of Plaintiff Longshore's constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff Longshore suffered because of the individual's conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

         Plaintiff Longshore shall present the amended complaint on the form provided by the Court. The amended complaint must be legibly rewritten or retyped in its entirety, it should be an original and not a copy, it should contain the same case number, and it may not incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference. The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for the original Complaint, and not as a supplement.

         If Plaintiff Longshore fails to file an amended complaint on or before January 10, 2018, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action.

         III. Motion to Stay (Dkt. 63)

         Defendant requests the Court stay these proceedings until the Court has determined whether this case should be severed. Dkt. 63. Plaintiff Closson has filed a Notice of Dismissal, requesting to be dismissed from this action, effectively mooting the severance issue. See Dkt. 70. As the Court has directed Plaintiff Longshore to file an amended complaint and as Plaintiff Closson has requested dismissal from this action, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings (Dkt. 63). However, because Plaintiff Longshore must file an amended complaint, Defendant is not required to file an answer or other responsive pleading until thirty days after Plaintiff Longshore files his amended complaint.

         IV. Motion to Regenerate ECFs (Dkt. 72)

         Plaintiff Longshore filed a Motion to Regenerate ECFs No. 43-62 as not Received or Served. Dkt. 72. Plaintiff Longshore states he has been transferred to several facilities and has not received Docket Entries 43-62. Id. After consideration of Plaintiff Longshore's Motion to Regenerate ECFs, the Motion (Dkt. 72) is granted. The Clerk is directed to resend Docket Entries 43 - 62 to Plaintiff Longshore.

         V. Miscellaneous Motions ...


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.