Hayden et al v. Knight et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge John H. Chun. (SB) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

Case 2:22-cv-01527-JHC Document 17 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

WALTER G. HAYDEN, JR.
vs.

CALI KNIGHT, Executive Director External
Relations; GAIL STONE, Law and Justice
Policy Senior Advisor; MICHAEL PADILLA,
External Relations Associate; CLAUDIA
BALDUCCI, King County Council; ROD
DEMBOWSKI, King County Council;
ZAHILAY GIRMAY, King County Council;
AMY CALDERWOOD, Director of King
County Ombudsman’s Office; LUKE OH,
Deputy, King Ombuds Office; JONATHAN
STIER, Senior Deputy, King County Ombuds
Office; BRUCE HARRELL, Mayor of Seattle;
KING COUNTY; CITY OF SEATTLE &
MUNICIPALITY, Governmental Agencies
and Agents,
Defendants.

20
21
22
23

Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01527-JHC

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s “Judgement &
Summary.” Dkt. # 10. To the extent this document is a motion for summary judgment,
it patently lacks merit. Notably, Plaintiff did not submit any evidence in support of any
ORDER (2:22-cv-01527- JHC) - 1

Case 2:22-cv-01527-JHC Document 17 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2

1

motion. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. Dkt. # 13. Plaintiff filed what

2

appear to be two “amendments” to the “Judgement & Summary.” Dkt. ## 14 & 16. But

3
4
5
6
7

neither document appears to reply to Defendants’ arguments; nor do they otherwise
provide a basis for granting summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. Accordingly, to the
extent that Dkt. # 10 is a motion for summary judgment, the Court DENIES it.
Signed this 17th day of January, 2023.
___________________________
JOHN H. CHUN
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER (2:22-cv-01527- JHC) - 2