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

April 3, 2018

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

          ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

          J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff 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.[1]

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff subsequently filed the current pending motions (Dkts. 266, 270, 275, 276, 278, 285, 290) along with numerous other filings.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Order to Show Cause

         On 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.

         II. Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion and Admission of Evidence

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         III. Motion for Clarification

         It is 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.

         IV. Motion to Strike ...


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.