Lawson v. Washington State Department of Corrections DOC et al

Filing 76

ORDER DENYING 71 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (AY, Case Administrator)**5 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(Geoffrey Lawson, Prisoner ID: 334928)

1
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Sep 06, 2018
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEAN F. M AVOY, CLERK

3

C

4
5

GEOFFREY ROBERT LAWSON,
SR.,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

No. 2:16-CV-00361-SMJ

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
DAN PACHOLKE; ELDON VAIL;
ISRAEL ROY GONZALES;
BRANDON WELLS; MARTHA
HAYES; TAMERA AVERY; LORI
WONDERS; JOHN DOES 1–10;
PAUL BARKER; BONNIE
LONGINO; H. HERNANDEZ; LT. D.
BUSS; LT. M. MARRY; CC2
JORDAN; BERNARD WARNER;
RACHEL SHOOK; and TRACY
STUENKEL,
Defendants.

15

Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Geoffrey R. Lawson’s

16

construed motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 71. Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court

17

titled “Plaintiff’s Objections.” The Court has reviewed the document and case file

18

and construes this letter as a motion for reconsideration of its: (1) Order Denying

19

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Judgment, ECF No. 67; (2) Order Denying

20

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and In Camera Review, ECF No. 68; and

2

(3) Order Granting Defendants Leave to Amend Answer, ECF No. 69.

3

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration exceeds the

4

page limits imposed by the Court. See ECF No. 52 at 10. Given that the motion has

5

been handwritten, especially by a pro se litigant, the Court exercises leniency.

6

Plaintiff also requests a telephonic hearing on the matter. ECF No. 71 at 2.

7

The Court has already noted in its Scheduling Order, ECF No. 52, that motions for

8

reconsideration are considered without a hearing. As such, the Court denies this

9

request.
The Court now turns to the merits.

10
11

1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Judgment

12

In its Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Judgment, the Court

13

first construed Plaintiff’s motion as one for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 67.

14

It then denied Plaintiff’s motion because he was unable to show that he was likely

15

to succeed on the merits. Id. at 6. Specifically, Plaintiff could not show that

16

Defendants’ conduct injured him in his criminal appeal because the court of appeals

17

accepted and addressed on the merits Plaintiff’s statement of additional grounds. Id.

18

And, Plaintiff could not show that Defendants violated his rights by banning laptop

19

use and compact discs (CDs) from non-authorized vendors. Id. at 7–10.

20

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

1

Plaintiff argues that he was not provided a “full and fair opportunity” to

2

present his evidence. ECF No. 71 at 4–5. Puzzlingly, Plaintiff had such an

3

opportunity to do so in his motion. To the extent Plaintiff argues that there should

4

have been an evidentiary hearing, this is generally true. However, because the relief

5

sought failed as a matter of law, i.e., Plaintiff could not show a likelihood of success

6

on the merits, the Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing. Any resolved factual

7

disputes would not save Plaintiff’s claim for relief.

8

Insofar as Plaintiff argues that the Court should have advanced the trial on

9

the merits, the Court has discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2)

10

to decline to do so. Indeed, the Court declined to do so because Plaintiff had not

11

provided a reason “for the necessity of an expedited decision.” ECF No. 67 at 10.

12

And, as discussed above, the Court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, so the

13

trial could not be consolidated with the hearing.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its

14
15

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Judgment.

16

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and In Camera Review

17

In its Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and In Camera

18

Review, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s requests were inappropriate because

19

Plaintiff did not claim the CDs were privileged, the relief sought was duplicative of

20

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3

1

the construed motion for preliminary injunction, and the CDs would be returned at

2

the conclusion of the case. ECF No. 68.

3

Plaintiff claims that this calls into question “the appearance of fairness”

4

because the Court refused to review and evaluate the CD evidence. ECF No. 71 at

5

5. However, Plaintiff does not present any new facts or information for the Court to

6

consider. As such, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its

7

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and In Camera Review.

8

3.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend Answer

9

In its Order Granting Defendants Leave to Amend Answer, the Court

10

concluded that justice required leave to amend. Specifically, Defendants discovered

11

that Plaintiff had asserted identical claims in a previous suit, and sought to include

12

the affirmative defense of res judicata. ECF No. 69 at 2. The Court also specifically

13

noted that the proposed amendment would not prejudice Plaintiff because the matter

14

was in its early stages. Id.

15

Plaintiff claims that the Court was unfair to grant Defendants leave to amend

16

before Plaintiff responded. ECF No. 71 at 6. Plaintiff is correct that he was entitled

17

to respond to the motion. But Plaintiff misunderstands: the Court may await a

18

responsive pleading if it would be helpful in its determination, such as for

19

substantive motions. Otherwise, the Court may promptly consider a motion to move

20

the case forward. For example, the Court did not await Defendants’ response prior

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4

1

to granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended

2

Complaint, ECF No. 17. Indeed, it granted Plaintiff’s motion on the same day. ECF

3

No. 18.

4

Moreover, Plaintiff does not claim now that there was prejudice. As such, the

5

Court is unpersuaded that it erred and does not strike the Amended Answer that has

6

already been filed. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for

7

reconsideration of its Order Granting Defendants Leave to Amend Answer.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff’s construed motion for
reconsideration, ECF No. 71, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to Plaintiff and all counsel.
DATED this 6th day of September 2018.
_______________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5