Norris v. Lahood

Filing 6

ORDER denying 2 Motion to Consolidate signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC) (cc: Pltf via mail)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

2
3
4

JAMES EDWARD NORRIS,
Plaintiff,

5

CASE NO. C13-5928 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

v.

6
RAY LAHOOD, Secretary of the United
7 States Department of Transportation, (FAA),
Defendant.

8
9

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff James Edward Norris’s (“Norris”) motion

10 to consolidate (Dkt. 2). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in
11 opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion without
12 prejudice for the reasons stated herein.
13
14

On October 18, 2013, Norris filed a complaint against Ray Lahood, Secretary of the
United States Department of Transportation, (FAA). Dkt. 1. On the same day, he filed a notice of
proof of his filing fee (Dkt. 3) and the instant motion to consolidate his case with the “previously

15
filed case James F. Gibson, Plaintiff (Pro-se) v. Ray Lahood, Secretary of Transportation,

16
(FAA), C-135870 (RBL).” Dkt. 2 at 1. Norris clearly alleges employment discrimination in the

17
18

late 1980’s and early 1990’s. See Dkt. 1. While Norris’s allegations appear to be outside of the
statute of limitations period, he alleges that he is within the statute of limitations at least in part

19 due to what he terms the “continuing EEOC violations doctrine.” Id. at 12. Norris appears to
20 claim the continuing violations doctrine is applicable to his case because after the Office of
21 Personnel Management awarded an emotional distress disability retirement annuity in the early
22

ORDER - 1

1 1990’s, his pilot’s licenses have been “unjustly, maliciously and illegally suspended” since that
2 time, and he has continued to be psychiatrically treated. Id. at 12.
3
4
5

In an October 22, 2013 order, Judge Ronald B. Leighton denied James F. Gibson’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis and his motion to consolidate his case with Norris’s (who
had yet to file a complaint). See 3:13-cv-5870-RBL, Dkt. 6. Judge Leighton found that Gibson’s
claims are time-barred and venue improper, as Gibson lives in Reno, Nevada. Id. Due to these

6
“inherent flaws,” Judge Leighton denied his motions and stated that the Court will dismiss the

7
Gibson’s complaint sua sponta if Gibson pays the filing fee. Id. A motion for reconsideration of

8
9

the foregoing order is pending. Dkt. 11.
Although it appears that Norris, like Gibson, is barred from bringing suit by the statute of

10 limitations, it is not entirely clear because the issue has not been fully presented. However, what
11 is clear is that Norris has failed to show the requisite proof for service of the summons,
12 complaint and the instant motion upon the appropriate persons, agencies or attorneys. See Fed.
13 R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)-(3) and (l) and W.D. Local Rule 4(c).
14

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Norris’s motion to consolidate is DENIED

15 without prejudice.
16

Dated this 15th day of November, 2013.

17

A

18
19

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

20
21
22

ORDER - 2