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.

Mathew Wallace v. Pierce County Sheriff's Department

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

June 27, 2019

William James Mathew Wallace II, Plaintiff,
v.
Pierce County Sheriff's Department et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DAVID W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Before the Court are several motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) Motion Requesting Copies of all Documents Related to this Case (“Motion for Copies”) (Dkt. 21); (2) Motion to Consolidate and Add Exhibit to Complaint (“Motion to Consolidate”) (Dkt. 22); and (3) Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint (“Motion for Extension”) (Dkt. 23). The Court has not yet served Plaintiff's Complaint. See Dkts. 13, 17.

         The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Copies (Dkt. 21) and his renewed requests for copies in his Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. 22) and Motion for Extension (Dkt. 23). The Court grants in part Plaintiff's request for a status update (Dkts. 21, 22). The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. 22). The Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Extension (Dkt. 23) and directs Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before August 1, 2019. The Court denies Plaintiff's requests for subpoenas (Dkts. 22, 23).

         I. Motion for Copies (Dkt. 21)

         On June 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Copies, wherein he requests copies of all documents related to this case. Dkt. 21. Plaintiff states he has been removed from the Washington Department of Corrections and placed in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, so he is no longer in possession of his files. Dkt. 21.

         To receive copies from the Court, the requesting party must pay $0.50 per page. As Plaintiff has not provided the necessary payment, his Motion for Copies (Dkt. 21) is denied. The Clerk's Office is directed to send Plaintiff copies of the Court's fee schedule and the copying charge letter. Plaintiff is also advised that it is his responsibility to keep copies of any of his own pleadings and legal documents. The Court notes Plaintiff renews his request for copies in his Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. 22) and Motion for Extension (Dkt. 23), which the Court also denies.

         II. Deprivation of Property/Access to the Courts (Dkts. 21, 22, 23)

         In all three Motions, Plaintiff asks the Court to assist him in obtaining his records/legal documents. See Dkts. 21, 22. In the Motion to Consolidate, Plaintiff alleges the Los Angeles County Jail has denied him access to the law library and asks the Court to notify the Los Angeles County Jail of his pro se status. Dkt. 22. In the Motion for Extension, Plaintiff alleges his mail was tampered with, and he no longer has access to his legal documents. Dkt. 23 at 1-2. Plaintiff attaches a grievance he filed related to his mail. Dkt. 23 at 3-6.

         Here, it appears Plaintiff attempts to raise a new, separate, deprivation of property claim and/or access to the courts claim. Plaintiff is advised if he seeks to raise claims which occurred after he filed this case, he must file a separate cause of action. An amended complaint may not change the nature of a suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants not permitted unless both commonality and same transaction requirements are satisfied). The Clerk's Office is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the appropriate forms for filing a 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights complaint and for service.

         III. Request for Status Update (Dkts. 21, 22)

         In both the Motion for Copies (Dkt. 21) and Motion for Consolidation (Dkt. 22), Plaintiff requests a status update in his two pending cases. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in two separate civil actions, both filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging violations of his civil rights. See Wallace v. Pierce County Sheriff's Department, et al., No. 3:19-cv-5329-RBL-DWC (“Wallace I”); Wallace v. Longano et. al, No. 3:19-cv-05330-RJB-JRC (“Wallace II”). The undersigned only has authority as to the case pending before him, Wallace I, thus, Plaintiff's request is granted in part. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the docket sheet in the instant action, Wallace I.

         IV. Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. 22)

         Plaintiff requests every document he has provided to the Court be shared between his two pending cases, Wallace I and Wallace II.[1] Dkt. 22. The Court interprets this request as a motion to consolidate this action with a separate ...


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.