Marshall v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 83

ORDER re: Motion for Clarification by Samuel Conti.(TD)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3
4

BRADLEY MARSHALL,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8

v.
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION,
et al.,
Defendants.

For the Western District of Washington

United States District Court

9
10
11

) Case No. CV-11-5319 SC
)
) ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
) CLARIFICATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

On May 23, 2012, the Court granted Defendants' motions for

12

judgment on the pleadings and entered a pre-filing order,

13

requiring, among other things, that Plaintiff file a motion for

14

leave prior to "fil[ing] any future claims in this District against

15

any Defendant in this action . . . ."

16

On the same day, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants

17

and against Plaintiff.

18

motion for clarification to determine whether he needs to obtain

19

the Court's permission before seeking review of the Court's Order

20

with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

21

The pre-filing order is expressly limited to "any future claims" he

22

might file.

ECF No. 81.

ECF No. 79 ("Order") at 28.

Plaintiff has since filed a

ECF No. 82.

He does not.

It does not encompass appeals.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated:

May 24, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE