United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
EDGAR L. MOORE, Plaintiff,
RYAN D. MCCARTHY, Acting Secretary of the Army, Defendant.
SECOND ORDER RENOTING MOTION TO DISMISS
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss (Dkt. 19) and Plaintiff's Motion to Request More
Time (Dkt. 26). The Court is familiar with the motions,
materials filed in opposition and support thereto, and the
remainder of the record herein. For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff's Motion to Request More Time should be
granted and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be
renoted to January 31, 2020, to allow Plaintiff more time to
case, Plaintiff, pro se, claims that his former
employer, at the Community Recreation Division, Department of
Army Directorate of Family, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation,
at Joint Base Lewis-McCord, discriminated against him based
on his race and disability. Dkt. 3.
Court, by its November 7, 2019 Order on Motion to Dismiss
(Dkt. 24), denied, in part,  Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, granted Plaintiff's request for a continuance to
obtain legal counsel, and renoted the remaining issues of the
Motion to Dismiss for consideration on January 3, 2020.
did not timely respond to the remaining issues of the Motion
to Dismiss, despite the Court filing a warning to Plaintiff
regarding deadlines and the instant motion to dismiss. Dkt.
21. On January 2, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply in Support of
Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 25. Defendant's reply provides,
in part, the following:
No attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff, either pro se or through legal counsel,
has not filed a response or opposition to Defendant's
motion to dismiss, which should have been filed by December
30, 2019. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that
the Court grant his motion to dismiss as to the remainder of
the motion not decided by Order dated November 7, 2019.
Dkt. 25, at 2 (citations omitted).
filed a Motion to Request More Time on January 2, 2020. Dkt.
26. The motion states only that, “[a]s the Plaintiff,
I'm asking for an extension due to the complexity of the
legal case and finding a qualified attorney to deal with
federal employment law.” Dkt. 26.
filed a response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to
Request More Time. Dkt. 27. Defendant argues, in part, that:
Plaintiff is not entitled to additional time. The allegations
of Plaintiff's complaint relate to events that occurred
years ago, apparently in 2012 and 2014. Memories fade and
witnesses may be more difficult to locate as time passes.
Defendant is unfairly prejudiced by an additional extension
and, particularly under these circumstances, where the Court
has already granted one extension continuing the noting date
from November 1, 2019, to January 3, 2020, is entitled to a
timely resolution of the matter.
Dkt. 27, at 2.
January 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply. Dkt. 28. Plaintiff
reports that he has been diligently searching for counsel.
Plaintiff provides the names and general locations of three
firms he claims to have contacted. Plaintiff adds, “But
due to the holiday season and each attorney's schedule, I
was not able to obtain counsel.” Dkt. 28, at 1.
Plaintiff further states that, on January 8, 2020, he
received a referral for counsel from the Seattle Litigation
Group to have his case reviewed. Plaintiff explains that he
was instructed to deliver his records to the Gustad Law
Group, which he claims to have delivered on January 9, 2020.
Plaintiff remarks that “counsel will need time to
review my case.” Dkt. 28, at 1.