Lawson v. Carney et al

Filing 148

ORDER Re 140 Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Summary Judgment; dismissing ECF NO. 140 for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (PL, Case Administrator)**4 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(Geoffrey Lawson, Prisoner ID: 334928)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 GEOFFREY R. LAWSON, NO: 2:15-CV-184-RMP Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 12 ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. BRENT CARNEY; MARK MURPHY; P.A. SABATINO; A.C. KNEI; and CHAPLIN LUCE, Defendants. 13 14 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff Geoffrey Lawson’s Motion for Relief 15 from Summary Judgment, ECF No. 140. Mr. Lawson appealed the Court’s Order 16 and Judgment, ECF Nos. 134 and 135, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. ECF 17 No. 136. He subsequently filed a motion for a limited remand in that court, and the 18 Ninth Circuit issued an Order. See ECF No. 147. In its order, the Ninth Circuit 19 stays briefing until February 12, 2018, and directs the appellant to indicate in his 20 opening brief, or in a status report, “whether the district court has made an indicative 21 ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1 1 ruling regarding appellant’s motion for relief from judgment.” ECF No. 147 (citing 2 Fed. R. App. F. 12.1). 3 “The filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction.” 4 Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986). Although the 5 Court does not have jurisdiction over motions filed by Mr. Lawson before this Court 6 after he filed his Notice of Appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the Court has reviewed Mr. 7 Lawson’s Motion for Relief from Summary Judgment, ECF No. 140, and notes that 8 Mr. Lawson appears to be predicating his motion on the basis that he had requested 9 discovery through a public disclosure process, but that the Airway Heights 10 Correctional Center (AHCC) refused to allow the disclosed material to be given to 11 him in custody, because some of the information, such as the medical records of 12 other prisoners, is prohibited. ECF No. 140 at 3 (citing Appendix A at ECF No. 140 13 at 8). 14 Mr. Lawson argues that he could have successfully defended against 15 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment if he had been given access to all of the 16 materials that he had requested either through the discovery process or through the 17 public disclosure process. Id. at 4. Alternatively, he argues that new evidence has 18 been discovered about contaminated water at the AHCC. Id. Mr. Lawson also 19 appears to argue that, had he been granted leave to amend his complaint to include 20 all relevant parties and received the discovery that he requested, he could have 21 ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2 1 survived summary judgment. Id. at 6. Therefore, Mr. Lawson argues that he should 2 be relieved of this Court’s Order granting summary judgment. ECF No. 140. 3 Mr. Lawson previously raised his concerns regarding the discovery process, 4 both to Magistrate Judge Mary Dimke, who drafted the Report and Recommendation 5 to this Court, and again to this Court in his objections to the Report and 6 Recommendation. In its order granting summary judgment, this Court addressed his 7 concerns by acknowledging that “Mr. Lawson raised several discovery issues in 8 support of his objections to granting Defendants’ summary judgment motions.” 9 ECF No. 134 at 28 (citations omitted). The Magistrate Judge further noted that it had 10 several hearings regarding discovery issues and that Mr. Lawson was given renewed 11 opportunities to conduct discovery and that continued delay was not appropriate. 12 ECF No. 127 at 41. The Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge and determined that 13 summary judgment was appropriate. 14 Regarding Mr. Lawson’s concerns about potentially contaminated water, the 15 Court noted that issue was not relevant to Mr. Lawson’s current lawsuit. ECF No. 16 134 at 31. Therefore, any new information or evidence about contaminated water at 17 the AHCC would not be a basis for altering this Court’s order on summary judgment 18 about nonrelated issues. 19 Mr. Lawson indicates that he should be allowed to amend his complaint and 20 argues that he was “never provided the opportunity to amend his complaint even 21 once.” ECF No. 140 at 6. Mr. Lawson did not file any motions for leave to amend. ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 3 1 Based upon the existing Complaint, the Court determined that summary judgment 2 was appropriate. 3 Therefore, to the extent that Appellant is required to provide the Ninth Circuit 4 with a status report indicating whether this Court likely would be amenable to 5 revisiting its prior Order Granting Summary Judgment, ECF No. 134, the Court finds 6 that there is no persuasive argument yet presented that would justify reconsideration. 7 Even if the Court had jurisdiction to consider Mr. Lawson’s Motion for Relief from 8 Judgment, which it does not, it would deny the motion based on the facts and 9 arguments that have been presented. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 11 1. Mr. Lawson’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 140, is 12 DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 13 2. All other pending motions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this 15 16 Order and provide copies to counsel and to pro se Plaintiff. DATED January 10, 2018. 17 18 19 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 20 21 ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?