Winns v. Washington State Department of Corrections et al

Filing 170

ORDER denying 148 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 157 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 162 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 165 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 168 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA HARRIS L. WINNS, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD CLARKE, et al., Defendants. NO. C06-5723RBL ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FULL JUDGMENT This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's serial "Demands Motion for Entry of Full Judgment." [Dkt. #s 148, 157, 162, 165 and 168]. The pro se Plaintiff apparently seeks, at least in part, entry of a final judgment on the Court's prior dismissal1 of his claims against the State, notwithstanding his unresolved claims against King County, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and (c). Plaintiff apparently seeks to appeal the dismissal of his claims against the State, while his case against the County proceeds in this Court. The Plaintiff has cited the correct Rule, but has failed to meet his burden of establishing that there is no just cause for delay. Indeed, the Plaintiff's citation to the policy disfavoring piecemeal litigation supports denying, not granting, the motion. The Motions are DENIED. Plaintiff also renews his request for a Default Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. The Defendants have Answered the Complaint, and this portion of the Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED as well. // See Dkt. #147. ORDER Page - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER Page - 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 6th of May, 2009. A RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?