Smith v. Phillips et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying plaintiffs' 31 Motion for Alternative Dispute Resolution; striking plaintiffs' 32 Motion for Service of Complaint on Everett Police Department Employees; striking plaintiffs' 34 Motion for Discovery; striking plaintiffs' 37 Notice and Claim for Equal Rights, signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. (cc: Plaintiffs via USPS) (SWT)

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

6
7
8

ROBERT H. SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.

10
11

Case No. C17-1457-RSL-MAT

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ PENDING
MOTIONS

RYAN W. PHILLIPS, et al.,
Defendants.

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 plaintiffs’ motions for alternative dispute resolution, for service of

16

their complaint on defendants Cracchilo and Seth, and for discovery.

17

considered plaintiffs’ motions, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as

18

follows:

19

(1)

The Court, having

Plaintiffs’ motion for alternative dispute resolution (Dkt. 31) is DENIED. Plaintiffs

20

request in the instant motion that this Court appoint a mediator under Local Civil Rule (LCR)

21

16.2(a), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (g) and (h). The Snohomish County defendants1 oppose plaintiffs’

22
23

1

Defendants Ryan Phillips, Janet Lee Malkow, Brian Emery, and Jose-Angel Vargas are employed by
Snohomish County and will be referred to as the “Snohomish County defendants.” Two other defendants, Robert

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ PENDING
MOTIONS - 1

1

motion. (Dkt. 33.) Defendants first assert that they are unable to meaningfully respond to

2

plaintiffs’ motion because the local rule cited by plaintiffs does not exist. Defendants further assert

3

that any request for appointment of a mediator is premature. (See id.) Defendants are correct that

4

there is no LCR 16.2 in the Western District of Washington. Assuming, as defendants suggest,

5

that plaintiffs intended to refer to LCR 39.1, the Court concurs that plaintiffs’ request for a

6

mediator is premature. The Snohomish County defendants only recently appeared, the City of

7

Everett defendants have not appeared at all, and the parties have not yet had an opportunity to

8

conduct any discovery. It therefore seems unlikely that mediation would be at all productive at

9

this juncture.

10

(2)

Plaintiffs’ motion for service of the complaint on defendants Cracchilo and Seth

11

(Dkt. 32) is STRICKEN. The instant motion was signed by only one of the two plaintiffs in this

12

action, Robert Smith. Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[e]very

13

pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed . . . by a party personally if the party is

14

unrepresented.” Because the motion was not also signed by plaintiff James Phillips, the motion is

15

procedurally defective and is not properly before the Court. The Court also notes that plaintiffs’

16

motion appears to be moot as defendants Cracchilo and Seth both returned waivers of service of

17

summons in which they acknowledge having received copies of plaintiffs’ pleading. (See Dkts.

18

28, 29.)

19

(3)

Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery (Dkt. 34) is STRICKEN. The instant motion was

20

signed by only one of the two plaintiffs in this action, James Phillips. Because the motion was not

21

also signed by plaintiff Robert Smith, the motion is procedurally defective and is not properly

22
23

Cracchilo and Jarrod Seth, are apparently employed by the City of Everett and will be referred to as the “City of
Everett defendants.” The City of Everett defendants have not yet appeared in this action.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ PENDING
MOTIONS - 2

1

before the Court. The Court notes that the motion is also improper because discovery requests are

2

not to be filed with the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1). Plaintiffs are advised to familiarize

3

themselves with the discovery rules, as set forth in Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil

4

Procedure and the local rules of this Court, before proceeding further with this aspect of their case.

5

(4)

Plaintiffs’ Notice and Claim for Equal Justice under the Law (Dkt. 37) is

6

STRICKEN. Once again, plaintiffs have submitted a document signed by only one of the two

7

named plaintiffs, Robert Smith. The document is therefore procedurally defective and is not

8

properly before the Court. The Court notes as well that the series of complaints raised therein by

9

plaintiff Smith are by and large frivolous and warrant no further response.

10

(5)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiffs, to counsel for

11

defendants, and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik.

12

DATED this 13th day of June, 2018.

13

A

14

Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ PENDING
MOTIONS - 3