King v. Whatcom County Deputies et al
ORDER denying plaintiff's 35 Motion to void power of attorney without prejudice by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida.(RS) cc plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ROBERT L KING,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
VOID POWER OF ATTORNEY
LT. STACH, et al.,
CASE NO. C16-1420-JCC-BAT
Pro se plaintiff Robert L. King moves the Court to void a Power of Attorney and to enter
an order “directing Defendant to comply to any and all filing by Plaintiff while housed in
Whatcom County Jail.” Dkt. 35. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED
Plaintiff first asks that this Court void a Power of Attorney granted to Matthew Silva of
Seattle Law. Dkt. 35 at 1. There is no indication that Mr. Silva or Seattle Law have any
connection with this case, and nothing before this Court suggests it has jurisdiction over the
matter. The Court therefore declines to grant plaintiff’s request.
As for the remainder of plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds it difficult to discern whether
any request for relief may be granted. Plaintiff asserts that on March 28, 2017, he was
transferred to Whatcom County Jail, where he was placed in segregation without reason and
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VOID
POWER OF ATTORNEY - 1
denied access to the jail law library. Dkt. 35 at 2. These claims appear to be new and unrelated
to the claims raised in plaintiff’s complaint. See Dkt. 15. Additionally, the Court observes that
plaintiff makes no request for relief to redress these grievances. Accordingly, the Court declines
to review them.
Plaintiff also suggests he is still awaiting responses to discovery requests. Dkt. 35 at 3.
But plaintiff offers no facts indicating any responses are untimely or otherwise objectionable.1
Thus, it is not clear whether plaintiff raises, or even intends to raise, a meritorious discovery
dispute. The Court therefore also declines to address this portion of plaintiff’s motion at this
Plaintiff’s motion, Dkt. 35, is DENIED without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable John
DATED this 20th day of April, 2017.
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is reminded that Local Rule 37(a)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1)
provide that any motion to compel discovery must certify that the movant has made a good faith
effort to meet and confer with the allegedly offending party in an effort to resolve any dispute
without court action. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 37(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VOID
POWER OF ATTORNEY - 2
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?