McAdams v. Penrose et al

Filing 22

ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING, DISMISSING DEFENDANT GEMBERLING AND STRIKING SURRESPONSE granting 12 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Surresponse, ECF No. 21 , is STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mary K. Dimke. (JW, Operations Clk)**5 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Grant McAdams, Prisoner ID: 303490)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 5 GRANT THOMAS McADAMS, NO: 4:16-cv-05133-MKD 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, v. JANET GEMBERLING, ANDREW REMINGTON, MICHAEL TRUE, JANE SNYDER, MICHAEL J. REZNICEK, JOHN and JANE DOE(S), and RICHARD and RACHEL ROE(S), ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING, DISMISSING DEFENDANT GEMBERLING AND STRIKING SURRESPONSE ECF Nos. 12, 21 Defendants. BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s request for a 30-day extension of time for filing a brief addressing the Gunwall factors. ECF No. 19, ¶ 6.7. Plaintiff is a prisoner at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center in Connell, Washington. Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff filed suit and his case was removed from Franklin County Superior Court as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Defendants are represented by Jerry Scharosch. On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff was ordered to amend or voluntarily dismiss his complaint. ECF No. 11. 20 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING- 1 1 A. 2 On June 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 15. Amended Complaint 3 Plaintiff alleged that he was diagnosed with a delusional disorder by Defendant 4 Snyder, the diagnosis was adopted by Defendant Reznicek, and Plaintiff suffered 5 damages as a result. ECF No. 15 at 22-24. With respect to Defendants Remington 6 and True, Plaintiff alleged they mishandled mail that was sent to Plaintiff by a 7 court and this caused additional damages. ECF No. 15 at 16-21. Defendant 8 Gemberling previously represented Plaintiff and had filed a Motion to Dismiss for 9 Failure of Timely Service on April 17, 2017. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff did not name 10 Defendant Gemberling in the First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 15 at 1. 11 Accordingly, Defendant Gemberling’s motion to dismiss without prejudice 12 (ECF No. 12) is granted. Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Time for Gunwall1 Briefing 13 B. 14 On June 20, 2017, Defendants Remington, True, Snyder, and Reznicek filed 15 a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), ECF No. 16, set for 16 hearing without argument August 8, 2017. On July 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a 17 18 1  See State v. Gunwall, 106 Wash.2d 54, 64 (1986) (courts will only engage in 19 independent inquiry of state constitutional claims if the party invoking the state 20 constitutional provision briefs the six nonexclusive factors). ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING- 2 1 response, ECF No. 19, and on July 19, 2017, Defendants replied, ECF No. 20. 2 Without seeking the Court’s prior approval, on August 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a 3 surresponse. ECF No. 21. 4 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed June 8, 2017, alleged violations 5 of several of his rights protected by the federal constitution, including the First 6 Amendment. ECF No. 15 at 6. In addition, Plaintiff alleged several of his rights 7 under the Washington State Constitution were violated and he sought relief on that 8 basis. ECF No. 15 at 13. In Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, they respond that 9 Plaintiff’s citation to the state constitution does not alone state a valid claim; 10 Plaintiff has not specifically invoked, argued, and analyzed the state-based 11 protections, including the Gunwall factors, and, under the facts presented, the 12 Washington Constitution does not provide greater protection than those afforded 13 by the federal constitutional provisions Plaintiff invoked. ECF No. 16 at 7-8. In 14 his response to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff asked the Court for a 30-day 15 extension of time to brief the Gunwall factors. ECF No. 19, ¶ 6.7. 16 17 After review, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for an extension of 30 days to brief the Gunwall factors. 18 C. 19 With respect to Plaintiff’s surresponse, ECF No. 21, the Court notes that this 20 Surresponse is the second such pleading Plaintiff has filed in this case. Previously, Plaintiff ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING- 3 1 sought leave for filing a surresponse. ECF No. 7. A surresponse has been defined 2 as “[a] second response by someone who opposes a motion.” Lee v. City of 3 Kingman, 124 F.Supp.3d 985, 993 n.1 (D. Ariz. August 25, 2015) (citing Black’s 4 Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)). Since Plaintiff is not a movant, he has filed a 5 surresponse. 6 Surresponses are not authorized by any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 7 absent prior leave of court. Lee, 124 F.Supp.3d at 993 n.1 (citing in part Padilla v. 8 Bechtel Const. Co., No. CV 06 286 PHX LOA, 2007 WL 625927, at *1 (D. Ariz. 9 Feb. 27, 2007) (regarding surresponses). 10 Here, nothing is offered to justify the Court’s consideration of a surresponse. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED: 13 1. Defendant Gemberling Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, ECF 14 No. 12, is GRANTED. Claims against Defendant Gemberling are dismissed 15 without prejudice. 16 17 18 2. The Court directs additional briefing: (a) Plaintiff shall file any brief addressing the Gunwall factors by September 11, 2017. 19 (b) Defendant shall file any response by September 25, 2017. 20 (c) Plaintiff may file any reply by October 5, 2017. ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING- 4 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Plaintiff’s Surresponse, ECF No. 21, is STRICKEN as improperly filed. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and forward a copy to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants. DATED August 9, 2017. s/ Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING- 5

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?