Powell v. City of Pasco et al

Filing 61

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND TO ALTER JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify ECF No. 59 is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion for New Trial and to Amend Judgment ECF No. 60 is DENIED. The file shall remain CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

SONIA POWELL,
NO: 4:16-CV-5071-TOR
Plaintiff,

8
v.
9

CITY OF PASCO, ET AL.,
10

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY AND MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL AND TO ALTER
JUDGMENT

Defendants.
11
12

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Judge (ECF No.

13

59) and Motion for New Trial and to Alter Judgment (ECF No. 60). The matter

14

was submitted without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files

15

herein, and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motions

16

(ECF Nos. 59; 60) are DENIED.

17
18

A. Motion to Disqualify Judge
Plaintiff seeks disqualification, asserting the Court’s decisions evidence bias

19

necessitating such. ECF No. 59; see ECF Nos. 27, 34; see also ECF Nos. 46, 49.

20

Plaintiff complains that because the Court labeled the underlying incidents as
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL AND TO ALTER JUDGMENT ~ 1

1

“mistreatment” this somehow suggest an unwillingness to consider the facts. ECF

2

No. 60 at 2. It is unclear how this label suggests an unwillingness to consider the

3

facts. 1 Further, the facts have been clearly delineated and considered by this Court

4

throughout. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 39 at 2-4; 52.

5

Plaintiff complains that “Ms. Powell could file many of her claims against

6

Defendant Ellerd today and they would still be timely, but not in Honorable Rice’s

7

court.” ECF No. 59 at 3. She reasons that “Defendant Ellerd terminated her

8

relationship with her client on April 22, 2014.” ECF No. 59 at 1. While this may

9

be true, Plaintiff did not allege any actionable conduct beyond April 23, 2013, as

10

this Court specifically mentioned. ECF No. 52 at 9. It matters not when Plaintiff’s

11

relationship ended with her attorney; the question is when the alleged actionable

12

conduct occurred. Plaintiff’s action is not timely.

13

Plaintiff further complains that the court intended to disregard her “delayed

14

discovery rule applied to her Abuse of Process Claim.” ECF No. 59 at 3.

15

Plaintiff’s tolling arguments, including its application to the abuse of process

16

claim, were extensively considered, and efforts were duplicated to ensure full and

17

complete consideration. See, e.g., ECF No. 52 at 2, 4-5, 8-19. Plaintiff contends

18
19
20

1

See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mistreat (mistreat defined

as: “to treat badly; abuse”).
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL AND TO ALTER JUDGMENT ~ 2

1

“[i]t is totally unreasonable to expect a member of the general public to

2

automatically grasp professional liability from the abuse of process.” This is not a

3

legal argument, nor the test to be applied. Moreover, Plaintiff admitted she knew

4

about the alleged abuse of process at the time she signed the Agreed Stipulation

5

and Order of Continuance. See ECF No. 17 at ¶ 140 (Plaintiff signed the

6

Agreement in order to “begin to pursue justice against those that had violated her

7

civil rights.”). Thus, Plaintiff’s delayed discovery rule is completely meritless.

8

Plaintiff finally complains “Ms. Powell was barred from filing because the

9

identities of Defendants were unlawfully concealed. The Court failed to take this

10

into evidence. These actions, too elementary to be errors, suggest a strong

11

(prejudicial) bias. The Court is obligated to recuse itself.” ECF No. 59 at 2. It is

12

not clear exactly what Plaintiff alleges this Court failed to consider or whose

13

identity was concealed and by what means. The Court specifically addressed

14

Plaintiff’s concealment argument, ECF No. 52 at 13-15 and otherwise addressed

15

all of the arguments Plaintiff raised for tolling, ECF No. 52, which included the

16

purported failures with respect to the public records request, ECF No. 52 at 9-15.

17

A review of Plaintiff’s numerous submissions does not reveal any oversight by the

18

Court, and Plaintiff failed to include a citation as to what was allegedly not

19

considered. Moreover, nowhere did Plaintiff state she was barred from filing for

20

any reason, only that she was allegedly delayed. Moreover, Plaintiff’s attempt to
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL AND TO ALTER JUDGMENT ~ 3

1

file with the State, well before the statute of limitations ran, further belies her

2

contention.

3

Notably, this Court has been extremely generous with Plaintiff’s

4

submissions, and has put in extensive effort to address all of Plaintiff’s numerous

5

contentions that were spread over a series of submitted documents. The Court has

6

disregarded continual and serious problems with the form and timing of Plaintiff’s

7

motions, and has liberally construed all of her allegations. The Court’s decision

8

does not evince any bias, and actually demonstrates the Court’s continual leniency

9

in interpreting Plaintiff’s arguments and in favor of reaching the merits of her case.

10
11

B. Motion for a New Trial and to Alter Judgment
Plaintiff has not submitted any substantive arguments with her Motion for a

12

New Trial and to Alter Judgment (ECF No. 60). The Motion is limited to bald

13

assertions that the judgment is against the clear weight of the evidence, without

14

discussing how. ECF No. 60 at 2. Plaintiff also states that a new trial is necessary

15

to avoid further delegitimizing the legal process and placing the public at risk, ECF

16

No. 60 at 3, but this is not a legal argument, nor is it a basis for ignoring the statute

17

of limitations. Finally, Plaintiff asserts her pleading raises genuine issues, ECF

18

No. 60 at 3, but does not mention how. She further states that her in forma

19

pauperis status was revoked to avoid the unflattering exposure. ECF No. 60 at 3.

20

This is not the case. The Court rejected her status because, after review of the
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL AND TO ALTER JUDGMENT ~ 4

1

undisputed evidence, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations and

2

the Court found “that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good

3

faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact.” ECF No. 52 at 22.

4

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

5

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify (ECF No. 59) is DENIED.

6

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial and to Amend Judgment (ECF No. 60)

7
8
9
10

is DENIED.
The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish
copies to the parties. The file shall remain CLOSED.
DATED April 14, 2017.

11
12

THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL AND TO ALTER JUDGMENT ~ 5