Williams v. Gage et al

Filing 106

ORDER denying Plaintiff's motions (Dkt. No. 88 , 90 , 96 ) and re-sets deadlines. Deadline for plaintiff to file motion for leave to amend is 3/6/2020, Discovery completed by 3/6/2020, Dispositive motions due by 5/6/2020. Signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. **6 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL** (James Williams, Prisoner ID: 740600) (TH)

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

6
7
8

JAMES ANTHONY WILLIAMS,

9

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AND
EXTENDING DEADLINES

v.

10

Case No. C18-0218-JCC-MAT

BRUCE C GAGE, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff has nine ripe motions

15

pending. (Dkts. 76, 77, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 96, 99.) This order addresses Docket Nos. 88, 90, and

16

96.

17

concurrently with this order. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motions

18

before it and RE-SETS the deadlines for plaintiff to file a motion for leave to amend and for the

19

parties to complete discovery and file dispositive motions.

The Court addresses the remaining motions in a Report and Recommendation filed

20
21

DISCUSSION
A.

Docket No. 88

22

Plaintiff asks the Court to send him a copy of his original complaint so he can draft his

23

supplemental response, order defendants to give him access to all of his mental health records, and

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AND
EXTENDING DEADLINES - 1

1

appoint a doctor to examine him for SHU-syndrome. (See Dkt. 88.) Plaintiff is not entitled to any

2

of the relief he seeks. First, plaintiff has already submitted his supplemental response (Dkt. 92)

3

and therefore his request for a copy of his complaint is moot. Second, plaintiff must obtain his

4

mental health records through proper discovery requests. Third, plaintiff is not entitled to a court-

5

ordered examination. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 provides that a court, upon a showing

6

of good cause, may “order a party whose mental or physical condition . . . is in controversy to

7

submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.” Fed. R.

8

Civ. P. 35(a); see also Houghton v. M & F Fishing, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 666, 667 (S.D. Cal. 2001)

9

(citing Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 117 (1964)). “The purpose of Rule 35 is to allow a

10

movant to request examination of a party whose mental or physical condition is in controversy,

11

not for a party to request examination of himself for purposes of supporting his claim.” Quintana

12

v. Swarthout, No. 09-3221, 2012 WL 5499872, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012). Indeed, Rule 35

13

“does not vest the court with authority to appoint an expert to examine a party wishing an

14

examination of himself.” Callegari v. Lee, No. 08-2420, 2011 WL 175927, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan.

15

19, 2011) (quoting Smith v. Carroll, 602 F. Supp. 2d 521, 526 (D. Del. 2009), and collecting cases).

16

Furthermore, the Court is aware of no authority allowing it to order an independent examination

17

at government expense for an indigent plaintiff in a civil action, and there is no indication in the

18

record that plaintiff has the funds to pay for the examination himself. See Tedder v. Odel, 890

19

F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent

20

litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress . . . .”) (citation and internal quotation marks

21

omitted).

22

\\

23

\\

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AND
EXTENDING DEADLINES - 2

1

B.

Docket No. 90

2

Plaintiff alleges that he issued discovery requests to defendants in late 2018 and that

3

defendants are withholding his copies of the documents he sent and failing to properly respond to

4

his requests. (See generally Dkt. 90.) Plaintiff claims that he has been unable to get access from

5

Ms. Dominique-Kastle to the necessary forms to issue additional discovery requests and therefore

6

will be unable to complete discovery by the January 31, 2020 deadline. (Id.) He asks the Court

7

to order defendants to send him a copy of his original discovery requests so that he has a template

8

to use for future requests and to compel defendants to produce evidence. (Id.) Defendants oppose

9

plaintiff’s motion, arguing, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil

10

Procedure 37(a) and Local Civil Rule 37(a). (See Dkt. 95.)

11

Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he requests. First, in a declaration plaintiff filed on

12

October 28, 2019, he states that he found a sample discovery request and can now start drafting

13

discovery. (Dkt. 98 at 1.) Therefore, his request for his original discovery requests is moot.

14

Second, defendants are correct that plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable rules prior to

15

bringing his motion to compel. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 requires a good faith effort to

16

confer prior to moving to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). In addition to Rule 37, the Local Civil

17

Rules for the Western District of Washington provide:

22

Any motion for an order compelling disclosure or discovery must include a
certification, in the motion or in a declaration or affidavit, that the movant has in
good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make
disclosure or discovery in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The
certification must list the date, manner, and participants to the conference. If the
movant fails to include such a certification, the court may deny the motion without
addressing the merits of the dispute. A good faith effort to confer with a party or
person not making a disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a
telephone conference.

23

Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 37(a)(1) (emphases added). Plaintiff did not comply with these

18
19
20
21

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AND
EXTENDING DEADLINES - 3

1

requirements prior to filing his motion, and therefore the Court will not consider the merits of his

2

motion. If plaintiff attempts to meet and confer with counsel for defendants and is unable to

3

resolve his dispute, he may file a motion to compel that complies with the applicable rules.

4

C.

Docket No. 96

5

Plaintiff asks the Court to make a preliminary ruling on the adequacy of his discovery

6

requests before he issues them to defendants. (See generally Dkt. 96.) The Court does not issue

7

such rulings. Plaintiff must draft the requests to the best of his ability and serve them on

8

defendants. If he is not satisfied with defendants’ responses, he must attempt to resolve his issues

9

directly with counsel for defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 37.

10

Only if he is unable to resolve his issues directly with counsel for defendants, he may file a motion

11

with the Court. If the motion complies with the applicable rules, the Court will review his requests.

12

Plaintiff also asks the Court to make a preliminary ruling regarding the sufficiency of new

13

claims he wants to add to this action in an amended complaint. (See Dkt. 96.) The Court, however,

14

does not make such preliminary rulings. If plaintiff would like the Court to review new claims, he

15

must file a motion for leave to amend accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. The Court

16

previously set November 1, 2019 as the deadline for plaintiff to file a motion for leave to amend

17

and a proposed amended complaint. The Court will grant plaintiff an extension of time until

18

March 6, 2020 to file a motion for leave to amend.

19

No further extension of time to file a motion for leave to amend will be granted absent

20

a showing of exceptional circumstances. The proposed amended complaint must contain a

21

“short and plain statement” of the grounds for relief, and each averment in the complaint must be

22

“simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. An amended complaint operates as a complete

23

substitute for the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992),

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AND
EXTENDING DEADLINES - 4

1

and thus the proposed amended complaint must clearly identify all the defendants, the

2

constitutional or federal statutory claims asserted, the specific facts that plaintiff believes support

3

each claim, and the specific relief requested. The Court will direct the Clerk to send plaintiff the

4

appropriate form to guide him in drafting his proposed amended complaint, which may not exceed

5

30 pages in length. In addition, plaintiff may, but is not required to, submit evidence in support

6

of his proposed amended complaint.

7

Plaintiff is reminded that the following principles of law govern this action. To sustain a

8

§ 1983 civil rights claim, plaintiff must show (1) he suffered a violation of rights protected by the

9

Constitution or created by federal statute, and (2) the violation was proximately caused by a person

10

acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Crumpton v. Gates, 947

11

F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). To satisfy the second prong, plaintiff must allege facts showing

12

how individually named defendants caused or personally participated in causing the harm alleged

13

in the complaint. Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff must identify, as

14

to each individual defendant, what constitutional or federal statutory right he alleges that defendant

15

to have violated, and the facts that support each claim.

16

A defendant cannot be held liable solely on the basis of supervisory responsibility or

17

position. Monnell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Rather, a plaintiff must allege

18

that a defendant’s own conduct violated the plaintiff’s civil rights. City of Canton v. Harris, 49

19

U.S. 378, 385-90 (1989). In other words, plaintiff may not name defendants based solely on

20

supervisory liability.

21

D.

Extension of Additional Deadlines

22

The discovery deadline is currently January 31, 2020, and the dispositive motions deadline

23

is March 6, 2020. Given that the Court is extending the deadline for plaintiff to file a motion for

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AND
EXTENDING DEADLINES - 5

1

leave to amend to March 6, 2020, the Court also extends the discovery deadline to March 6, 2020,

2

and the dispositive motions deadline to May 6, 2020. If the Court allows plaintiff to amend his

3

complaint, the Court will entertain motions by the parties to reset these deadlines.

4
5
6

II.

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES plaintiff’s motions (Dkts. 88, 90, 96) and RE-SETS the following
deadlines:

7

Deadline for plaintiff to file motion for leave to amend

March 6, 2020

8

Discovery deadline

March 6, 2020

9

Dispositive motions deadline

May 6, 2020

10

Plaintiff is reminded that no further extension of time to file a motion for leave to amend will be

11

granted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances, and any proposed amended complaint may

12

not exceed 30 pages.

13

The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff the appropriate form so that he may prepare a

14

proposed amended complaint and to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable

15

John C. Coughenour.

16

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2020.

17
18

A

19

Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AND
EXTENDING DEADLINES - 6