United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS
Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge.
Terrance Jon Irby, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are
plaintiff's eight miscellaneous motions.
originally filed four separate actions, which were
consolidated in June of 2017. Dkt. 111. Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint that same month. Dkt. 116. He
filed a second amended complaint in September of 2017 (Dkt.
165), as well as a subsequent correction to the complaint
(Dkt. 167). Because both the Court and defendants were
confused by plaintiff's numerous filings, the Court
granted plaintiff's request to “correct his
‘corrected second amended complaint'” (Dkt.
189 at 3-4), and directed the clerk to file his third amended
complaint (Id.; Dkts. 178, 190). The Court
subsequently recommended that all his claims except his
claims pertaining to the American with Disability Act
(“ADA”) and access to courts be dismissed,
warning plaintiff that failure to provide a plain statement
of his remaining claims would result in a recommendation for
dismissal. Dkt. 244. The District Court adopted the
Court's recommendation. Dkt. 245.
subsequently filed the current pending motions (Dkts. 266,
270, 275, 276, 278, 285, 290) along with numerous other
Order to Show Cause
February 20, 2018, the Court ordered the parties to show
cause why this case should not be stayed pending the
resolution of plaintiff's appeal to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Dkt. 282. State defendants filed a response
on February 26, 2018, stating they do not oppose a stay on
the case. Dkt. 284. On February 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit
issued an order dismissing plaintiff's appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. Dkt. 286. Defendant Furst then filed a response
objecting to the stay because plaintiff's appeal had been
terminated. Dkt. 291. Because the Ninth Circuit appeal has
been terminated, and with the benefit of defendants'
responses to the order to show cause, the Court declines to
stay this case at this time.
Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion and Admission of
requests that, in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision
to deny his appeal, the Court strike two of his motions,
citing to Dkts. 270 and 277. Dkt. 290. The Court interprets
this motion as a motion to withdraw plaintiff's previous
motions. His motion at Dkt. 270 is a motion for
clarification, but the document located at Dkt. 277 is an
order signed by Judge Leighton. Because the Court has not yet
ruled on plaintiff's motion at Dkt. 270 (see LCR
7(1)), the Court grants his motion to withdraw (Dkt. 285) as
to the motion for clarification. The Clerk is directed to
strike plaintiff's motion for clarification at Dkt. 270.
However, because the other identified “motion” is
an order from Judge Leighton, the Court denies
plaintiff's motion as to the order at Dkt. 277.
has also provided additional exhibits and additional argument
with this motion. See Dkt. 290. However, he makes no
further request for the Court's action. Because the
remainder of his motion does not appear to request additional
action from the Court, the Court denies it as moot.
Motion for Clarification
unclear what plaintiff is requesting from the Court with his
motion for clarification. It appears that he is trying to
explain which document is the operative complaint, pointing
out that there are several pending motions to which
defendants have not responded, and ensuring that defendant
Furst's answer at Dkt. 210 is “renoted” with
his fourth amended complaint. Dkt. 285. The remainder of the
filing appears to be additional argument supplementing his
complaint, largely regarding claims the Court has already
dismissed. See id. Insofar as plaintiff requests
defendants answer his motions, the time to answer has already
passed and the Court declines to renote the motions to allow
for additional time. Insofar as plaintiff attempts to clarify
his own filings, the Court takes note of those
clarifications. Otherwise, because plaintiff does not appear
to request additional action from the Court, the motion for
clarification (Dkt. 285) is denied as moot.
Motion to Strike ...