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)

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