Slaughter v. Glebe et al

Filing 130

ORDER denying 116 Motion for Telephonic Hearing; denying 118 Motion for Pretrial Conference; denying 122 Motion for Leave; denying 126 Motion for Hearing signed by Judge J Richard Creatura.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Ossie Slaughter, Prisoner ID: 827869)(MET)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

OSSIE LEE SLAUGHTER,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05484-BHS-JRC
ORDER ON SEVERAL MOTIONS

v.
PAT GLEBE et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Ossie Lee Slaughter, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court are several motions filed by
plaintiff: (1) second and third motions for a telephonic hearing (Dkts. 116, 126); (2) motion for
pretrial conference, scheduling and planning (Dkt. 118); and (3) motion for leave to add
defendants (Dkt. 122). Defendants responded. Dkt. 120, 123. Plaintiff did not file a reply.
The Court denies plaintiff’s second and third motions for a telephonic hearing as the
Court has not ordered oral argument on this matter and the parties do not need to appear for a
hearing or status conference. The Court denies as premature plaintiff’s motion for pretrial
scheduling order and motion to add defendants.

24

ORDER ON SEVERAL MOTIONS - 1

1

1. Motions for Telephonic Hearing (Dkt. 116, Dkt. 126)

2

In his second and third motions for telephonic hearing, plaintiff moves for the Court to

3 enter an order to allow him to appear by telephone on December 16, 2016, Dkt. 116, and January
4 31, 2017, Dkt. 126. In both motions, plaintiff states that he requests a telephone appearance
5 because he is in a “peril predicament” and is being subjected to medical indifference. Dkts. 116,
6 126. The Court notes that plaintiff’s third motion for telephonic hearing (Dkt. 126) is not ready
7 for the Court’s consideration until February 3, 2017. However, based on the record, the Court
8 has determined that it is not necessary to wait for the noting date to review this motion.
9

As the Court previously advised plaintiff, see Dkt. 113 (Order Denying Motion for

10 Telephonic Hearing), oral argument is not conducted on motions unless ordered by the Court.
11 See Local Rule 7 (b)(4). The Court has not ordered oral argument on this matter and the parties
12 do not need to appear for a hearing or status conference. Nor does plaintiff demonstrate that a
13 hearing or conference is necessary. Thus, plaintiff’s motions (Dkts. 116, 126) are denied.
14

2. Motion for Pretrial Conference (Dkt. 118)

15

Plaintiff also requests a pretrial conference, scheduling and planning for trial, with

16 possible settlement negotiations. Dkt. 118. To the extent that plaintiff renews his request for a
17 telephonic conference, plaintiff’s request is denied as discussed above.
18

To the extent that plaintiff requests the entry of a pretrial scheduling order, the Court

19 denies plaintiff’s motion as premature. The undersigned recommended that defendants’ motion
20 to dismiss be denied based on plaintiff’s failure to follow court orders. Dkt. 124. However,
21 District Judge Settle has not yet entered an order on the report and recommendation and
22 defendants have not filed an answer. See Dkt. As defendants point out, if the case proceeds after
23 District Judge Settle enters an order, and defendants file an answer, the Court will issue a
24

ORDER ON SEVERAL MOTIONS - 2

1 scheduling order including discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. See Dkt. 120. Thus,
2 based on the record, resolving any pretrial scheduling issues at this point is premature.
3 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 118) is denied without prejudice.
4

3. Motion for Leave to Add Defendant (Dkt. 122)

5

Plaintiff seeks to add defendants Christine Brule and Diane Sanchez as defendants under

6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and 21. Dkt. 122. As discussed above, it is premature to
7 determine whether plaintiff should be allowed to add new defendants to this case until District
8 Judge Settle has entered an order on the undersigned’s report and recommendation that
9 defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. Dkt. 124. If the case proceeds after District Judge
10 Settle enters an order, plaintiff may re-file his motion to add defendants at that time.
11 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to add defendants (Dkt. 122) is denied without prejudice.
12

Dated this 27th day of January, 2017.

A

13
14

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON SEVERAL MOTIONS - 3