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.

Smith v. Gronseth

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

April 24, 2018

JESS R. SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
B GRONSETH, Y STUBBS, S FRAKES, M OBENLAND, ROY GONZALEZ, M HOLTHE, WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND

          DAVID W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action filed by Plaintiff Jess R. Smith to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (“Motion”), in which he seeks to amend his original Complaint.[1]Dkt. 60.

         The Court concludes the interests of justice require giving leave to amend. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is granted.

         BACKGROUND

         In the Complaint, Plaintiff - an inmate currently housed at Washington State Penitentiary (“WSP”) - alleges Defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was housed at Clallam Bay Corrections Center (“CBCC”). See Dkt. 8. Plaintiff's claims arise from a Washington State Department of Corrections (“DOC”) policy that Plaintiff alleges does not allow him access to out-of-state case law. See id.

         Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on September 9, 2016. Dkt. 1. On November 23, 2016, Defendants filed an Answer and the Court entered Pretrial Scheduling Order, directing the parties to complete discovery by May 23, 2017, and file dispositive motions by June 22, 2017. See Dkt. 26, 27. On September 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction against Defendants. Dkt. 5.

         Meanwhile, on January 24, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 30. Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on February 17, 2017, and on February 27, 2017, Defendants filed a Reply. Dkt. 38, 42.

         On February 8, 2017, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 35. Plaintiff appealed this Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. 37. Therefore, on April 11, 2017, this Court stayed Plaintiff's case pending resolution Plaintiff's appeal. Dkt. 47. On January 12, 2018, the Court lifted the stay because the appeal had been resolved.[2] Dkt. 53.

         On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed his first Motion to Amend the Complaint. Dkt. 57. The Court denied Plaintiff's first Motion to Amend without prejudice on February 16, 2018 because Plaintiff failed to attach a proposed amended complaint to that motion. Dkt 59.

         On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present Motion, this time attaching the proposed amended complaint. See Dkt. 60. Defendants filed a Response to this Motion on March 30, 2018, requesting the Motion be denied because Plaintiff's proposed amendments would be futile and prejudice Defendants. Dkt. 61.

         DISCUSSION

         Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days ...

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.