Downey v. Snohomish County Sheriffs Office et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 33 Motion for Reconsideration and granting in part Plaintiff's 34 Motion for Production of Documents. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff together with copies of the exhibits submitted by plaintiff in support of his original complaint (Dkt. 5 , pages 27-64). Signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler.(TH) (cc: Plaintiff via U.S. Mail) Modified on 11/8/2017 to include language stating copies of exhibits were mailed to Plaintiff (TH).

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

DYLAN JAMES DOWNEY,
Plaintiff,

10
11

Case No. C17-1024-JCC-MAT

Defendants.

9

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS

v.
TY TRENARY, et al.,

12
13
14

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

15

Court at the present time on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s prior Order

16

denying his application for court-appointed counsel, and on plaintiff’s motion for production of

17

documents. The Court, having considered plaintiff’s motions, and the balance of the record,

18

hereby finds and ORDERS as follows:

19

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Order denying his application

20

for court-appointed counsel (Dkt. 33) is DENIED. On July 21, 2017, this Court issued an Order

21

denying plaintiff’s application for court-appointed counsel. (Dkt. 7.) Plaintiff subsequently

22

moved for reconsideration of that Order, and plaintiff’s motion was denied on September 5, 2017.

23
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

(See Dkts. 16 and 18.) Plaintiff now moves the Court again for reconsideration of its prior Order

2

denying his application for court-appointed counsel. As plaintiff was advised in the Court’s Order

3

denying his first motion for reconsideration, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within

4

fourteen days after the order to which it relates is filed. (See Dkt. 18 at 2, citing LCR 7(h)(2).)

5

Plaintiff did not sign his second motion for reconsideration until October 19, 2017, and the Court

6

did not receive the motion for filing until October 25, 2017. It is therefore clear that plaintiff’s

7

motion for reconsideration is untimely.

8

(2)

Plaintiff’s motion for production of documents (Dkt. 34) is GRANTED in part.

9

Plaintiff, by way of the instant motion, seeks to have exhibits submitted in conjunction with his

10

original complaint returned to him. Plaintiff asserts that he did not retain copies of the exhibits

11

prior to submitting them, and he needs them for use later in these proceedings. The Court cannot

12

return plaintiff’s original exhibits, but will provide plaintiff with copies of the requested exhibits

13

in this instance. Plaintiff is advised that he should retain copies of all future submissions as the

14

Court will not provide copies of such documents absent payment of the requisite copy fee.

15

(3)

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

16

of the exhibits submitted by plaintiff in support of his original complaint (Dkt. 5, pages 27-64).

17

The Clerk is further directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for defendants and to the

18

Honorable John C. Coughenour.

19

DATED this 8th day of November, 2017.

20

A

21

Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2