Calvin v. Elfo et al

Filing 36

ORDER re Plaintiff's 35 Response to Motion. by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The Clerk shall STRIKE Plaintiff's improperly filed response. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL NEF ONLY **(Donald Calvin, Prisoner ID: 251585)(PM) Modified on 3/8/2021 to correct print instruction. Clerk will regenerate NEF to Plaintiff. (PM).

Case 2:20-cv-00866-RSM Document 36 Filed 03/08/21 Page 1 of 2

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

6
7
8

DONALD L. CALVIN,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

CASE NO. C20-00866-RSM
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
BILL ELFO, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

On March 4, 2021, the Court received Plaintiff’s filing entitled “Response to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.” Dkt. #35.

16

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s filing is unsigned. Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

17

Procedure requires that every pleading, motion, and other paper submitted to the Court be signed

18

by the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Rule 11(a) further provides that any unsigned document must

19

be stricken unless the omission of the signature is promptly corrected. Id. Because Plaintiff’s

20

Response is unsigned, it is not properly before the Court.

21

Furthermore, the title and content of Plaintiff’s filing indicates that he intended this

22

document as a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The noting date for

23

Defendants’ summary judgment motion expired weeks ago on February 12, 2021. See Dkt. #29.
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT - 1

Case 2:20-cv-00866-RSM Document 36 Filed 03/08/21 Page 2 of 2

1

Since then, the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, U.S. Magistrate Judge, entered a Report &

2

Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary

3

judgment and dismiss the case with prejudice. Dkt. #34. Plaintiff’s untimely response is not

4

properly before the Court, given that he filed it several weeks after the noting date without moving

5

for relief from the deadline.

6
7

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s filing dated March 4, 2021, is not
properly before the Court. The Court hereby ORDERS:

8

(1) The Clerk shall STRIKE Plaintiff’s improperly filed response, Dkt. #35.

9

(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge Tsuchida.

10
11

Dated this 8th day of March, 2021.

12
13

A

14

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT - 2