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)

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