Block v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE directing Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to the Bar Order of 4/13/2016 (15-cv-2018RSM). Show cause response due within two weeks of this order. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8

ANNE BLOCK,
Plaintiff,

9

12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

10
11

Case No. C18-907RSM

WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte based on a Bar Order issued on April 13,

15

2016, against Plaintiff Anne Block in this Court. See Dkt. #122 in Block v. Washington State

16
17

Bar Association et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02018-RSM (W.D. Wash. 2016). That Order stated:
Any pro se complaint submitted for filing in this District in which
Anne Block is a named Plaintiff or purports to act as party
representative shall be subject to review by the Court prior to the
issuance of summons or service of process. . . . The Court will
review the proposed Complaint to determine whether good cause
exists to permit the action to proceed in light of the claims raised
therein and Ms. Block’s past litigation abuses. . . . The proposed
Complaint shall be accompanied by a signed statement explaining,
on a claim-by-claim basis, (a) whether each claim was raised in
any prior action (with an appropriate citation) and (b) why each
claim is not barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata, and/or an
applicable immunity. If the Court determines that good cause has
not been shown, the action will be dismissed sua sponte without
further notice. If the Court also determines that sanctions are
appropriate, those shall be imposed at the same time the action is
dismissed.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Id. at 25–26.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1

This case was originally filed by Ms. Block in U.S. District Court for the Middle

2

District of Pennsylvania. The Honorable Malachy E. Mannion noted it was “inexplicabl[e]”

3

that Ms. Block filed in Pennsylvania, given that Plaintiff and Defendants reside in Washington

4

State, and the claims arise from events occurring in Washington State. Dkt. #8 at 1–2. The

5
6

Pennsylvania Court ruled that “plaintiff’s Complaint and her Amended Complaint both indicate

7

that the crux of this case occurred in Washington State, and the addition of a single

8

Pennsylvania defendant, along with a threadbare factual basis of liability, does not suffice to

9

keep this action out of the venue in which it rightfully belongs.” Id. at 8. The case was then

10
11
12

transferred here. This Court agrees with Judge Mannion’s analysis and will not revisit the issue
of venue.

13

The Court finds that the April 13, 2016, Bar Order applies to this case even though it

14

was originally filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, Ms. Block SHALL

15

SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to that Bar Order.

16
17

Specifically, Ms. Block must respond with a signed statement explaining, on a claim-by-claim

18

basis, (a) whether each claim was raised in any prior action (with an appropriate citation) and

19

(b) why each claim is not barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata, and/or an applicable

20

immunity. The Response is due no later than 14 days from the date of this Order and may not

21

exceed 8 pages. No attachments are permitted. Failure to file this Response will result in

22
23
24

dismissal.
DATED this 25th day of June, 2018.

25

A

26
27

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2