Walker v. Microsoft Corporation et al
Filing
15
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's #13 Motion for Clarification and granting Plaintiff's #14 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff is directed to file his second amended complaint not later than Friday, 10/21/2022. Signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (LH) (cc: Plaintiff via US mail)
Case 2:22-cv-00482-TL-MLP Document 15 Filed 09/07/22 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
JONATHAN JENNINGS WALKER,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. C22-482-TL-MLP
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
13
14
Plaintiff Jonathan Jennings Walker initiated this action on April 11, 2022, when he
15
presented to this Court for filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a
16
proposed civil rights complaint. (See dkt. # 1.) On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff presented to the Court
17
for filing a corrected IFP application and a proposed amended complaint. (See dkt. # 9.)
18
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is the operative complaint in this action at the present time.
19
Following Plaintiff’s submission of his amended complaint, the Court screened the pleading as it
20
is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court concluded, upon its review of
21
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, that Plaintiff had not adequately stated any cognizable claim for
22
relief therein. (See dkt. # 12.) Thus, on August 3, 2022, the Court issued an Order declining to
23
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME - 1
Case 2:22-cv-00482-TL-MLP Document 15 Filed 09/07/22 Page 2 of 5
1
serve Plaintiff’s amended complaint and granting him leave to file a second amended complaint.
2
(See id.) The Court identified in its Order a number of deficiencies Plaintiff would be required to
3
correct if he wished to proceed with this action, and he was given 30 days within which to file
4
his second amended pleading.
5
On August 23, 2022, the Court received from Plaintiff a motion for clarification of the
6
Court’s Order declining to serve his amended complaint (dkt. # 13), and a motion for an
7
extension of time to file his second amended complaint (dkt. # 14). These motions are currently
8
ripe for review by this Court. The Court addresses each motion below.
9
A.
Motion for Clarification
10
Plaintiff, in his first motion for relief, seeks clarification of various aspects of this Court’s
11
Order declining to serve his amended complaint and granting him leave to file a second amended
12
complaint. (See dkt. # 13.) However, the motion, in many respects, reads like an objection to that
13
Order as it challenges the Court’s conclusions and directives with respect to both procedural and
14
substantive issues discussed therein.
15
To the extent Plaintiff takes issue with the Court’s conclusions and directives regarding
16
the substance of his claims and their potential viability, Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is
17
denied. The Court’s prior Order described the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s claims and cited to
18
relevant supporting authority in its explanation of the deficiencies. (See dkt. # 13 at 6-9.) The
19
Court’s Order speaks for itself in this regard and no further clarification is necessary, nor would
20
it be appropriate in light of the fact that the points on which Plaintiff requests clarification
21
constitute, in essence, requests for legal advice which the Court is not permitted to provide.
22
23
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME - 2
Case 2:22-cv-00482-TL-MLP Document 15 Filed 09/07/22 Page 3 of 5
1
To the extent Plaintiff seeks clarification of matters of a more procedural nature, the
2
Court will address those issues briefly. First, Plaintiff takes issue with the way in which the
3
Court characterized issues concerning deficiencies in Plaintiff’s original application to proceed
4
IFP and his efforts to correct them. (Dkt. # 13 at 1-2.) However, the Court noted these issues
5
only in the context of explaining why Plaintiff’s original complaint had not been substantively
6
screened. (See dkt. # 12 at 1 n.1.) Plaintiff corrected the deficiencies and the Court ultimately
7
granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP. Any issues related to Plaintiff’s efforts to correct
8
the deficiencies in his IFP application, including timeliness issues, are therefore moot.
9
Plaintiff also takes issue with the Court’s observation that Plaintiff designated his
10
amended complaint as a “Class Action” complaint, and its explanation that this action is not
11
maintainable as a class action given that Plaintiff is proceeding with this action pro se. (See dkt.
12
# 13 at 2-3.) Plaintiff discusses at length why he believes the Court’s assessment of his complaint
13
in relation to its potential class action status was incorrect. (Id.) Nevertheless, as Plaintiff was
14
previously advised (see dkt. # 12 at 6), a pro se litigant has no authority to appear as an attorney
15
for others. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing
16
Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962)). “[A]n inmate does not have standing
17
to sue on behalf of his fellow prisoners. Rather, the prisoner must allege a personal loss and seek
18
to vindicate a deprivation of his own constitutional rights.” Weaver v. Wilcox, 650 F.2d 22, 27
19
(3rd Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). Therefore, if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint
20
in this action, he was advised to do so only on his own behalf.
21
22
23
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff questions why he is required to file his amended complaint
on an approved prisoner civil rights complaint form (dkt. # 13 at 5), he has misconstrued the
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME - 3
Case 2:22-cv-00482-TL-MLP Document 15 Filed 09/07/22 Page 4 of 5
1
Court’s Order. The Court directed the Clerk to provide Plaintiff a copy of the appropriate forms
2
as a courtesy because the form tends to aid pro se litigants in more effectively organizing and
3
presenting their claims. (See dkt. # 12 at 10.) Plaintiff is not required to use the form.
4
B.
Motion for Extension of Time
5
Plaintiff, in his motion for extension of time, asserts that in order to properly prepare his
6
second amended complaint, he requires clarification on aspects of the Court’s Order declining to
7
serve his amended complaint. (See dkt. # 14.) Plaintiff asks that he be granted thirty-days from
8
the date on which the Court responds to his motion for clarification to prepare and file his second
9
amended complaint. (See id.) Although the Court did not find Plaintiff’s motion for clarification
10
necessary, the Court is nonetheless willing to grant Plaintiff additional time to file his second
11
amended complaint now that his motion for clarification has been addressed.
12
C.
Conclusion
13
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
14
(1)
Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (dkt. # 13) is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff
15
seeks clarification of procedural aspects of the Court’s Order declining to serve his amended
16
complaint and DENIED to the extent Plaintiff seeks clarification of the Court’s conclusions and
17
directives with respect to the identified substantive deficiencies in the claims asserted by Plaintiff
18
in his amended complaint.
19
(2)
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file his second amended complaint
20
(dkt. # 14) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file his second amended complaint not later than
21
Friday, October 21, 2022.
22
23
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME - 4
Case 2:22-cv-00482-TL-MLP Document 15 Filed 09/07/22 Page 5 of 5
1
(3)
2
Tana Lin.
3
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable
DATED this 7th day of September, 2022.
4
A
5
MICHELLE L. PETERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME - 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?