Winns v. Washington State Department of Corrections et al

Filing 171

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 153 Motion to Dismiss or Compel. Granting Motion to Compel and Denying Without Prejudice Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has until 5/29/09 to respond or this matter will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

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 This matter is before the Court Defendant King County's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Compel Discovery. [Dkt. #153]. King County claims that Plaintiff Winns has failed to make his initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), and has failed to engage in discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. The County also alleges that Winns has failed to respond to the County's repeated requests to discuss these discovery obligations with him, and has instead insisted that he is not obligated to, and will not, do so. Plaintiff's Winns does not dispute these allegations. Instead, he apparently argues that a sinceresolved delay in service by the U.S. Marshall's office entitles him to a finding that Defendants are in default, and that he should be awarded default judgment. This aspect of Plaintiff's litigation strategy/argument has already been DENIED. See Dkt. #s 147 and 170. The Plaintiff previously engaged in a similar strategy with respect to his parallel claims against the State. He was ordered to comply with Discovery, and warned that his failure to honor his discovery v. HAROLD CLARKE, et al., Defendants. HARRIS L. WINNS, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA NO. C06-5723RBL ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT KING COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

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

obligations would result in the dismissal of his case against the State. See Dkt. #131. He made several subsequent filings, but did not ever comply with his discovery obligations or comply with the court's order. As a result, the state's Motion to dismiss was granted, and the Plaintiff's claims against it were dismissed. See Dkt. # 147. The County's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The County's Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to make his initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), and respond to discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, not later than May 29, 2009. Plaintiff is again WARNED that if he does not make a good faith effort to substantially comply with his obligations to make initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), and to respond to discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by this date, his claims against the County will be DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 8th of May, 2009.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER Page - 2