Richey v. Dahne

Filing 108

ORDER granting in part 94 Motion for relief from order and/or motion for voluntary dismissal and setting deadline for joint status report. Status report due by 8/1/2019. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL** (Thomas Richey, Prisoner ID: 929444) (MGC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

THOMAS W.S. RICHEY,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.
D. DAHNE,

11

Defendant.

CASE NO. C12-5060 BHS
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN
PART AND REQUESTING JOINT
STATUS REPORT REGARDING
AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant D. Dahne’s (“Dahne”) motion

14

for relief from an order and/or motion for involuntary dismissal. Dkt. 94. The Court has

15

considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the

16

remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion in part for the reasons stated herein.

17
18

I.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This matter has a long procedural history. In relevant part, Richey has a remaining

19

claim against Dahne for violation of his First Amendment right to petition the

20

government. The Court granted summary judgment on this claim as to liability, Dkt. 74,

21

and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, Dkt. 81. The claim is based on Dahne refusing to accept

22

ORDER - 1

1

Richey’s grievance because it “included rude comments about the guard’s weight,

2

including describing her as ‘extremely obese.’” Id. at 1–2.

3

On May 30, 2019, Dahne filed the instant motion seeking relief from the grant of

4

summary judgment and dismissal of Richey’s complaint based on allegations of Richey

5

committing a fraud upon the Court. Dkt. 94. While inspecting Richey’s outgoing mail,

6

staff found a letter Richey wrote to his wife in which he states as follows:

7
8
9

And just remember, this lawsuit was a creation of a setup. I had the idea to
do it based on an old case law and made the content of the grievance up.
There never was an “extremely obese female Hispanic guard” who denied
me a shower. All fabricated. And it made it all the way to the US Supreme
Court. Amazing.

10

Dkt. 95-1 at 2–3. This statement appears to directly contradict declarations Richey

11

submitted to the Court under penalty of perjury. See Dkts. 4, 47. On June 11, 2019,

12

Richey responded asserting that “he made a false statement in an effort to bait and

13

antagonize the staff who were withholding and presumably monitoring his mail.” Dkt.

14

97. On June 21, 2019, Dahne replied and submitted facts in support of his position that

15

Richey’s explanation is implausible. Dkt. 98. Dahne contends that mailroom staff did

16

not withhold any of Richey’s outgoing mail and therefore Richey would have no reason

17

to bait the mailroom staff. Id. at 3.

18
19

II. DISCUSSION
“[C]ourts have inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully

20

deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly

21

administration of justice.” Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir.

22

1983) (citing Phoceene Sous-Marine, S.A. v. U.S. Phosmarine, Inc., 682 F.2d 802, 806

ORDER - 2

1

(9th Cir. 1982). “When necessary, the district court may hold an evidentiary hearing on a

2

motion for sanctions. Indeed, that method best determines the appropriate sanctions while

3

protecting a party’s due process rights.” Id. at 592.

4

In this case, the parties have created a genuine factual dispute whether Richey

5

willfully deceived the Court. To resolve the dispute, the Court will hold an evidentiary

6

hearing. The parties shall meet and confer regarding an appropriate date for such a

7

hearing. If Richey seeks to attend the hearing in person instead of via a video link, he

8

shall file a motion for habeas corpus ad testificandum.

9

III. ORDER

10

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Dahne’s motion for relief from an order

11

and/or motion for involuntary dismissal, Dkt. 94, is GRANTED in part and the parties

12

shall file a joint status report regarding an appropriate date for an evidentiary hearing.

13

The Clerk shall remove the motion from the active calendar to be renoted for the date of

14

the hearing once a date is set.

15

Dated this 18th day of July, 2019.

A

16
17

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3