Warren v. Andrews et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 21 Report and Recommendations, DENIES 23 Motion for Extension of Time filed by James C. Warren, DENIES 22 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by James C. Warren by Judge Richard A. Jones. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(James Warren, Prisoner ID: 377102)(SG)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

JAMES C. WARREN,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

Case No. C17-1934-RAJ
ORDER

STEWART ANDREWS, MD, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. # 4), Amended Complaint

16

(Dkt. # 16), the Report and Recommendation of Brian A. Tsuchida, United States

17

Magistrate Judge (Dkt. # 21), Plaintiff’s “Motion for Copies of Pleadings Filed in Case,

18

Appointment of Counsel, Explanation of Report and Recommendation” (Dkt. # 22),

19

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extension of Time to Object to Report and Recommendation”

20

(Dkt. # 23), and the remaining record.

21

The Court concurs fully in the recommendations of the Report and

22

Recommendation. As explained by Judge Tsuchida, Plaintiff’s claim was not filed within

23

the applicable three-year statute of limitations period. Dkt. # 21 at 2. Despite Judge

24

Tsuchida offering Plaintiff an opportunity to show he was entitled to equitable tolling,

25

Plaintiff has made no such showing. Id. at 2-3. Finally, Plaintiff failed to adequately

26

plead a claim for any constitutional violation. Id. at 3-4.

27
28

ORDER – 1

1

Objections to Judge Tsuchida’s R&R were due by October 18, 2018. Dkt. # 21.

2

On October 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Copies of Pleadings Filed in Case,

3

Appointment of Counsel, Explanation of Report and Recommendation” with a number of

4

requests for this Court. Dkt. # 22. In this filing, Plaintiff requests (1) copies of all

5

documents filed in this case; (2) “disability services” from the U.S. District Court and the

6

United States Government; (3) an application to appoint an attorney; (4) copies of all

7

communications between the Court and the Washington Department of Corrections

8

“involved/about this case”; (5) an explanation of Judge Tsuchida’s Report and

9

Recommendation; and (6) a copy of this Court’s “Administrative Procedures for Prisoner

10

E-Filing.” Dkt. # 22. Plaintiff does not cite any legal authority that would entitle him to

11

any of these requests, nor does Plaintiff explain with any specificity why he needs, for

12

instance, every single filing in this case or this Court’s e-mails. Plaintiff does not state

13

what, if any, “disability services” are required, and for what reason. The Court also notes

14

that the attorney application and e-filing guide are both available upon request in the

15

Clerk’s Office or on this Court’s website (www.wawd.uscourts.gov), and have been from

16

the very outset of this case. However, even if Plaintiff had properly sought and received

17

these documents, it would not make any difference in the ultimate disposition of the case,

18

which is a dismissal of Plaintiff’s time-barred claim.

19

For these reasons, the Court will not order the copying, printing, and mailing of

20

the voluminous collection of information Plaintiff seeks. Instead, when the Clerk of the

21

Court mails a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, they should also mail a copy of the docket

22

sheet and another copy of the Report and Recommendation with its attachments.

23

Otherwise, Plaintiff's requests (Dkt # 22) are DENIED. Moreover, within this filing,

24

Plaintiff also objected to the R&R as containing “inaccurate [sic] and incomplete

25

information.” Dkt. # 22 at 3. Plaintiff did not elaborate on what was incomplete or

26

inaccurate about Judge Tsuchida’s R&R, and the Court cannot find any fault on its own

27

accord. The Court thus DENIES Plaintiff’s objection. Dkt # 22.

28

ORDER – 2

1

Finally, on October 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to

2

Object to Report and Recommendation. Dkt. # 23. By the time Plaintiff filed this

3

motion, he had already objected to the R&R in his previous motion a day earlier. Dkt. #

4

22 at 3. Plaintiff now requests an extension to make a more “complete” objection after

5

additional discovery of records, and because of an alleged injury he suffered on October

6

17. Dkt. # 23 at 1-2. Unlike his previous motion for an extension (Dkt. # 11), Plaintiff

7

provided no supporting evidence or declaration that this injury occurred. Even if he had,

8

Plaintiff had ample time to object to Judge Tsuchida’s recommendation that his claim be

9

dismissed as time-barred, and Plaintiff had no trouble filing an objection (and a host of

10

other requests) on October 17, 2018, despite his alleged head injury. Dkt. # 21. In fact,

11

Plaintiff was first put on notice of the fact that his Complaint was time-barred in Judge

12

Tsuchida’s Show Cause Order on January 30, 2018. Dkt. # 8. Plaintiff gives no

13

reasonable explanation for why he has not been able to research or address this deficiency

14

for the past ten months. Moreover, given that the effect of Judge Tsuchida’s well-

15

reasoned R&R is a dismissal of Plaintiff’s time-barred claim, the Court believes granting

16

such a request would be futile. The Court will thus DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for an

17

Extension of Time. Dkt. # 23.

18

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 21),

19

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies of Pleadings Filed in Case, Appointment of

20

Counsel, Explanation of Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 22), DENIES Plaintiff’s

21

Motion for Extension of Time to Object to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 23), and

22

DISMISSES this case with prejudice.

23
24

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2018.

26

A

27

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

25

28

ORDER – 3