Norris v. Lahood

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 10 Motion to more clearly explain and clarify the timeliness and venue.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 JAMES EDWARD NORRIS and JAMES
FRANKLIN GIBSON,
9
Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
RAY LAHOOD,
12
Defendant.
13
14

CASE NO. C13-5928 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND AND
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF
GIBSON

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff James Franklin Gibson’s

15 (“Gibson”) motion to more clearly explain and clarify the timeliness and venue aspects of
16 Plaintiffs’ complaint (Dkt. 10). Based on a thorough reading of this motion, Gibson is
17 not asking the Court for a ruling. However, he does appear to seek amendment of the
18 complaint so that he may clarify the timeliness and venue aspects as they relate to him.
19 Therefore, the Court deems Gibson’s motion as a motion to amend the complaint. The
20 Court has considered the pleadings filed with respect to this motion and the remainder of
21 the file and hereby denies the motion and sua sponta dismisses Gibson and his claims for
22 the reasons stated herein.

ORDER - 1

1
Gibson’s civil rights issues in this case have already been adjudicated by Judge
2
Ronald B. Leighton. See Gibson v. LaHood, C13-5870 (RBL), Dkt. 1-1 (Proposed
3
Complaint), and Dkt. 7 (Amended Complaint joining Gibson as a co-plaintiff in this
4
case). On October 22, 2013, Judge Leighton denied Gibson’s motion to proceed IFP in
5
his suit against Defendant Roy LaHood (“LaHood”), finding that his proposed complaint
6
was time barred, in the wrong venue, and lacked merit. See Gibson v. LaHood, C13-5870
7
(RBL), Dkt. 6 at 2 (citing Triati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th
8
Cir. 1987) (a court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it
9
appears from the face of the complaint that the action is frivolous and without merit”),
10
and Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (a complaint is frivolous if
11
it has no arguable basis in law or fact). On November 11, 2013, Judge Leighton denied
12
Gibson’s motion for reconsideration of his application to proceed in forma pauperis and
13
his motion to consolidate his case with the instant case, again finding Gibson’s claims
14
stale, time barred and legally frivolous. Gibson v. Lahood, C13-5870(RBL), Dkt. 9.
15
Judge Leighton’s orders control and constitute final orders. Therefore, Gibson is
16
dismissed as a plaintiff from this action and his motion to amend the complaint is
17
rendered moot, as his clarifications regarding timeliness and venue would not permit this
18
Court to decide issues that have already been adjudicated by Judge Leighton. If Gibson
19
wishes to appeal Judge Leighton’s decision, he may attempt to do so. However, it
20
appears that the time for filing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit has run.
21
22

ORDER - 2

1

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Gibson’s motion to amend (Dkt. 10) is

2 DENIED and Gibson and his claims against LaHood are DISMISSED.
3

Dated this 14th day of February, 2014.

A

4
5

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3