Slaughter v. White et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting plaintiff's 76 Second Motion for Extension of Time a more Definite Statement ; Plaintiff shall file his more definite statement not later than 3/28/2018 ; directing Clerk to send copies of dkts. 39 , 44 , 59 and 62 togeth er with this Order, signed by Hon. James P. Donohue. (Attachments: # 1 Dkt. 39 Main Document, # 2 Dkt. 39-1, # 3 Dkt. 39-2, # 4 Dkt. 39-3, # 5 Dkt. 39-4, # 6 Dkt. 39-5, # 7 Dkt. 39-6, # 8 Dkt. 39-7, # 9 Dkt. 39-8, # 10 Dkt. 39-9, # 11 Dkt. 39-10, # 12 Dkt.39-11, # 13 Dkt. 39-12, # 14 Dkt. 39-13, # 15 Dkt. 44, # 16 Dkt. 59, # 17 Dkt. 62)**311 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Ossie Slaughter, Prisoner ID: 827869)(SWT)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

OSSIE LEE SLAUGHTER,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Case No. C16-1067-RSM-JPD

Defendants.

8

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT

v.
DAN WHITE, et al.,

12
13

This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before

14

the Court at the present time on plaintiff’s “Motion for Clarification of Courts [sic] Dual Order’s

15

[sic] and Motion for Extension of Time to Respond Correctly,” in which plaintiff requests

16

extensions of the deadlines to file his more definite statement and his objections to the

17

undersigned’s Report and Recommendation recommending that plaintiff’s motion for

18

preliminary injunctive relief be denied. Only the portion of plaintiff’s motion pertaining to the

19

more definite statement is before this Court for consideration.

20

On August 17, 2017, the undersigned granted a motion by defendants for a more definite

21

statement detailing plaintiff’s claims against the five defendants remaining in this action. (See

22

Dkt. 62.) Plaintiff was given 45 days, or until October 2, 2017, to file his statement. (See id.)

23

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT - 1

1

Plaintiff objected to the Order directing him to file a more definite statement and, when his

2

objections were denied by the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief United States District

3

Judge, on October 24, 2017, plaintiff was given a new deadline of November 14, 2017 to file his

4

more definite statement. (See Dkts. 65, 68.)

5

Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for an extension of time to file his more definite

6

statement and to file objections to the undersigned’s Report and Recommendation

7

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. (Dkt. 70.) On

8

November 17, 2017, the undersigned issued an Order granting plaintiff additional time to file his

9

more definite statement, and set a new deadline of January 16, 2018. (Dkt. 73.) On November

10

28, 2017, Chief Judge Martinez issued an Order granting plaintiff additional time to file

11

objections to the pending Report and Recommendation, and set a new deadline of January 22,

12

2018. (Dkt. 74.) Plaintiff did not timely file a more definite statement or objections to the

13

Report and Recommendation. Instead, plaintiff filed the instant motion in which he claims that

14

the prior Orders granting him additional time require clarification, and that this need for

15

clarification, in addition to his need to obtain some of his legal property which has yet to catch

16

up with him after two recent transfers between Washington Department of Corrections facilities,

17

justify additional extensions.

18

On February 2, 2018, Chief Judge Martinez denied plaintiff’s motion for an extension of

19

time to file his objections to the pending Report and Recommendation, concluding that plaintiff

20

had not set forth sufficient good cause for a second extension of time. (See Dkt. 77.) This Court

21

is skeptical as well about whether another extension is justified. Certainly, plaintiff’s suggestion

22

that the Court’s prior Orders created some sort of confusion which impeded his ability to timely

23

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT - 2

1

comply with either deadline strains credulity. This Court also questions whether plaintiff

2

actually requires any additional legal materials to perform what should be the relatively simple

3

task of providing details regarding his claims against defendants Brittany West, Lance Rogers, S.

4

Ewing, Sheryl Allbert, and C/O Jones. However, in order to ensure that plaintiff has every

5

reasonable opportunity to comply with the directive that he provide a more definite statement,

6

the Court will grant one final extension and will also provide plaintiff with copies of documents

7

on file with the Court which should assist him in this endeavor.

8

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

9

(1)

Plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of time to file a more definite statement

10

(Dkt. 76) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his more definite statement not later than March 28,

11

2018. No further extensions will be granted. If plaintiff fails to comply with this deadline, the

12

Court will recommend dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

13

(2)

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff together with copies

14

of plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Dkt. 39), the Report and Recommendation screening

15

plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Dkt. 44), defendants’ motion for a more definite

16

statement (Dkt. 59), and this Court’s Order granting defendants’ motion for a more definite

17

statement (Dkt. 62). The Clerk is further directed to send a copy of this Order to counsel for

18

defendants and to Chief Judge Martinez.

19
20
21
22
23

DATED this 28th day of February, 2018.

A

JAMES P. DONOHUE
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT - 3