Gilligan et al v. Kanive et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration/Objections signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.(MET) cc: Plaintiffs

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

9
10
11

EDWARD GILLIGAN et al.,
CASE NO. C11-5061BHS/JRC
Plaintiffs,

12

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO PRIOR
RULINGS

13

v.

14

ROBERTA F. KANIVE et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

This 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights matter, which was removed from state court, has been
referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and(B) and

19
Local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. Plaintiffs have filed a document
20
21
22
23

entitled “objections to courts (sic) denial of plaintiffs (sic) motion to compel discovery” (ECF
No. 18).
The first matter the court will address is Mr. Hargrove’s statement that the court is

24

mistaken and that plaintiff Hargrove filed no motion seeking a 60-day extension of time, only a

25

letter to the clerk of court (ECF No. 18. ¶ 2.9). In the letter, plaintiff asks the court and clerk’s

26

office to note his pro se status. He also asks the court and clerk for any extensions that can be

ORDER - 1

1

provided. The letter is considered a motion because it asks for court action. The court liberally

2

construed the letter as a motion given that the plaintiffs are pro se. Further, defendants’ counsel

3

filed a declaration and motion (ECF No. 14 and 15). In the declaration, counsel explains why a

4

discovery conference was delayed until April 5, 2011. Counsel was in trial. Counsel states that

5
6
7

plaintiffs requested an extension of time during the discovery conference and defendants did not
object. Defendants’ counsel agreed to bring the motion as a joint motion (ECF No. 14).

8

The next issue is the motion to compel. Plaintiffs filed the motion nearly a week before

9

the discovery conference took place (ECF No. 13). The court did not err in denying the motion.

10
11

Plaintiffs’ pro se status does not relieve them of complying with procedural rules. Further, it
does not relieve them of paying the cost of copies of file documents or medical files.

12
Review of the file convinces the court that its previous order was appropriate. Therefore,
13
14
15
16
17
18

to the extent the “objection” may be considered as a motion for reconsideration, the motion is
DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiffs and remove ECF
No. 18 from the court calendar.
DATED this 22nd day of April, 2011.

19

A

20
21

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26

ORDER - 2