Griepsma v. Wend et al

Filing 75

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 72 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, RENOTING all of defendants' motions (Dkts. 15 , 38 , 50 , 67 , 70 ) : Noting Date 8/18/2017 ; denying Plaintiff's 73 Motion for Extension of Time to obtain Brianna Roger's address ; directing Clerk to send to Plaintiff copies of motions to dismiss and accompanying declarations, signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff with copies as directed via USPS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 JAMES D. GRIEPSMA, Plaintiff, 10 11 CASE NO. C16-1843-JLR-MAT v. ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS 12 CHARLIE WEND, et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, 16 submitted two motions for extensions of time and a letter to the Court. (Dkt. 72-74.) Having 17 considered the motions and letter, the Court finds and concludes as follows: 18 (1) Plaintiff’s motions seek extensions of time to respond to defendants’ declarations 19 and to obtain defendant Brianna Roger’s address. (Dkts. 72-73.) While dated March 19 and 20, 20 2017, the Court did not receive the motions until June 23, 2017. By letter to the Court, plaintiff 21 states he wrote the motions while incarcerated at Monroe Correctional Complex (MCC), gave 22 them to his investigator to file, but only recently discovered the motions had not been filed. (Dkt. 23 74.) Although not entirely clear, plaintiff further appears to indicate he did not receive two of the ORDER PAGE - 1 1 five motions filed by defendants and currently pending in this case. (See Dkts. 72-74 (reflecting 2 his receipt of defendants’ motion to dismiss eleven defendants, their fourth “declaration”, and the 3 motion to find his complaint frivolous, while indicating he had not yet received the second or third 4 “declarations”).) He requests copies of the motions not received and additional time to submit all 5 of his responses. Plaintiff also notes he has difficulty writing due to his hand injury and is currently 6 homeless.1 7 Plaintiff did not timely respond to any of defendants’ pending motions. The first of those 8 motions, seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against eleven defendants (Dkt. 15), was originally 9 noted for consideration on April 7, 2017,2 and plaintiff’s current filing makes clear he received 10 that motion while incarcerated at MCC in March of 2017 (see Dkts. 72-74). The other pending 11 motions were all served by mail to plaintiff’s current, general delivery mailing address and were 12 noted for consideration, respectively, on May 12, 2017, and June 9, 16, and 23, 2017. (See Dkts. 13 38, 50, 67, and 70.) However, considering plaintiff’s pro se status and the circumstances described 14 in his letter and motions to the Court, the Court finds good cause for an extension of time. 15 Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond (Dkt. 72) is herein GRANTED in 16 relation to defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Eleven Defendants (Dkt. 15), Motion to Dismiss Three 17 Defendants (Dkt. 38), Motion to Dismiss Five Defendants (Dkt. 50), Motion to Dismiss Defendant 18 ARNP Sue Baerg (Dkt. 67), and Motion to Find Griepsma’s Complaint Frivolous (Dkt. 70). 19 Plaintiff must submit his response(s) to the Court on or before August 4, 2017. Defendants are 20 21 22 23 1 Plaintiff additionally states he is seeking an attorney. It should be noted that, by Order dated May 17, 2017, the Court denied plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (See Dkts. 48 & 66.) 2 The Court renoted the motion for consideration on June 16, 2016 because it was not clear whether it had been received by plaintiff. (Dkt. 65 (motion served by mail to Skagit County jail on March 9, 2017, but plaintiff had been transferred to the Washington Department of Corrections on December 23, 2016 and held at MCC until his release on or around March 22, 2017).) ORDER PAGE - 2 1 directed to submit a reply to the response(s) on or before August 18, 2017, and the Clerk is directed 2 to RENOTE all of defendants’ motions (Dkts. 15, 38, 50, 67, 70) for consideration on August 18, 3 2017. (2) 4 Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to obtain Brianna Roger’s address (Dkt. 5 73) is DENIED. In requesting the extension, plaintiff explains he needs more time to obtain 6 Rogers’ address “so she can be served.” (Dkt. 73.) Rogers has been served and is represented by 7 counsel in this matter. (See Dkts. 5-6.) There is, as such, no basis for plaintiff’s request. (3) 8 The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable 9 James L. Robart. The Clerk is further directed to send to plaintiff copies of the Motion to Dismiss 10 Three Defendants (Dkt. 38), Motion to Dismiss Five Defendants (Dkt. 50), and Motion to Dismiss 11 Defendant ARNP Sue Baerg (Dkt. 67), along with all accompanying declarations (Dkts. 39-44, 12 51-62). 13 DATED this 27th day of June, 2017. 14 A 15 Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER PAGE - 3

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?