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.

Trevino v. Quigley

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

July 27, 2018

FRANCIS ANTHONY TREVINO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
KEVIN W. QUIGLEY, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

          JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the court is pro se Plaintiffs Francis Anthony Trevino and Mark Newton Kelly's (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (Inj. Mot. (Dkt. # 9)), second motion for reconsideration (2d MFR (Dkt. # 10)), and motion to certify for interlocutory appeal (IA Mot. (Dkt. # 11)). Defendants Kevin W. Quigley and Dorothy Sawyer (collectively, “Defendants”) have not responded.[1] The court has considered the motions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, [2] the court denies the motions and orders Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

         II. BACKGROUND

         Although their complaint is difficult to follow, it appears that Plaintiffs bring suit to challenge their confinement and Washington State's procedures for evaluating civil competency and commitment. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1) at 12 (stating that over 190 days have elapsed and citing Washington's statute on competency examinations); see also Id. at 15-16 (citing RCW ch. 10.77); id. at 10 (citing Doe v. Gallinot, 657 F.2d 1022 (9th Cir. 1981), which discusses the constitutionally protected liberty interest of a person who has been involuntarily committed).) Mr. Trevino alleges that he was arrested on August 6, 2016. (Id. at 7.) He further alleges a “monopoly” between Mr. Quigley and Ms. Sawyer-allegedly the heads of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and Eastern State Hospital, respectively-related to his speedy trial clock. (Id.) Mr. Kelly alleges that he was arrested on December 3, 1995, and arraigned on January 9, 1996. (Id. at 8.) He contends that attorney John Nollette and Spokane County Superior Court Judge James M. Murphy appointed a “sanity commission” and a “15[-]day stay.”[3](Id. (omitting internal punctuation).) He further alleges that he was “forgotten” and “held” beyond 60 days. (Id.) Plaintiffs are currently imprisoned at Coyote Ridge Correctional Center. (See Id. at 1.) As exhibits to their complaint, Plaintiffs attach various filings from Spokane County Superior Court. (See id., Ex. 1 (Dkt. # 1-2).) One of the exhibits reveals that Mr. Trevino was recommended for inpatient evaluation at Eastern State Hospital on December 14, 2016, and that on December 23, 2016, he was deemed competent to stand trial. (See Id. at 17, 20.)

         Under the “Statement of Claim” section, Plaintiffs reference “‘[t]he “Birth” of Trueblood (# C14-1178MJP)'; Antitrust Violation(s); Profit in ‘Predatory' Interest(s)' ‘Monopoly' of RCW 10.77 & CrR3.3(e)(1); Merger Thru [sic] Barriers Formed ‘Distinct Group' Excluded Period(s) . . . ‘Qui Tam' Action.” (Id. at 4 (internal brackets omitted and internal punctuation altered); see also Id. at 3 (raising the First Amendment right to petition the government, qui tam, the Sherman and Clayton Acts, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2201, 2202; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 60(b); and Washington State Rules of Criminal Procedure).) They ask the court whether Trueblood v. Washington State Department of Social & Health Services, No. C14-1178MJP (W.D. Wash. 2014), a case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution, or an “actual controversy” under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, “make[s] a distinct sep[a]ration of economic resources, economic interests, and intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine” and whether “this [is] a matter of usurped authority.” (Id. at 8 (internal punctuation and capitalization omitted).)

         Liberally construed, the court discerns that Plaintiffs allege constitutional violations related to their confinement and Washington State's procedures for civil competency evaluation and commitment, as addressed in Trueblood, 2016 WL 4268933, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 15, 2016) (requiring Washington State to complete in-jail competency evaluations within 14 days of a court order).[4] (See, e.g., Compl., Ex. 1 at 60.) They seek relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), treble damages, qui tam awards, $90 million for Mr. Trevino, and $270 million for Mr. Kelly. (Id. at 30.)

         On May 8, 2018, the court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Spokane County Superior Court Judge Gregory D. Sypolt; Spokane County Superior Court Judge James M. Murphy; Washington State Supreme Court Clerk Erin L. Lennon; and Washington State Supreme Court Clerk Susan L. Carlson (collectively, “Judicial Defendants”). (5/8/18 Order (Dkt. # 6) at 3.) The court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Judicial Defendants because Plaintiffs' allegations showed that Judicial Defendants were entitled to judicial or quasi-judicial immunity. (Id. at 2-3.) On June 11, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, which the court denied for two reasons: (1) the motion was untimely, and (2) Plaintiffs failed to show manifest error in the court's prior ruling or any new facts or legal authority that Plaintiffs could not have brought to the court's attention earlier. (6/15/18 Order at 3.)

         On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for both a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction. (See Inj. Mot.) Plaintiffs also filed a “supplement” in which they contest the court's June 15, 2018, order denying reconsideration of its decision to dismiss Judicial Defendants. (See 2d MFR at 2-3; see also 6/15/18 Order (Dkt. # 8) at 2-3 (denying first motion for reconsideration).) The court construes the supplement as a second motion for reconsideration. (See generally 2d MFR.) Finally, Plaintiffs request leave to appeal the dismissal of Judicial Defendants, which the court construes as a motion for interlocutory appeal. (See IA Mot. at 1.) No. defendant has yet appeared or responded, and there is no indication that Plaintiffs have served Defendants. (See Dkt.) The court now addresses Plaintiffs' motions.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. Second Motion for Reconsideration

         Plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider its decision denying Plaintiffs' previous reconsideration motion. (See 2d MFR at 2.) Plaintiffs argue that the first motion was timely because they completed a postage transfer on May 21, 2018, and their first motion was mailed on May 25, 2018. (Id. at 2; see also Id. at 4 (attaching the postage transfer as an exhibit).) In making that argument, Plaintiffs appear to invoke the prison mailbox rule. See Hernandez v. Spearman, 764 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that “[a] pro se prisoner's notice of appeal from the denial of a federal habeas petition is filed” at the time the prisoner delivers the notice to “prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk”); Adler v. McDonald, No. 2:15-cv-0789 TLN CKD P, 2016 WL 2346980, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2016) (“Under the mailbox rule, a prisoner's pleading is deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to the relevant court.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988))).

         Although Plaintiffs turned over their motion to prison authorities for filing on May 21, 2018 (see 2d MFR at 4), the court nevertheless also denied the motion because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate manifest error or any new facts or legal authority that they could not have brought to the court's attention before (see 6/15/18 Order at 2). Plaintiffs' current submission does not change that conclusion. (See 2d MFR at 2 (raising only the timeliness issue).) Thus, the court denies Plaintiffs' second motion for reconsideration and turns next to Plaintiffs' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal.

         B. ...


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.