Polito v. Skamania County et al

Filing 89

ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motions 31 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 35 Motion for Order; denying 36 Motion to Amend. ; denying 47 Motion for Hearing; denying 48 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 55 Motion for Summary J udgment; denying 56 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 60 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 61 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 62 Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying 63 Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying 65 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 84 Motion for Sanctions; denying 28 Motion to Amend. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
STEVEN POLITO,

CASE NO. C15-5542 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11

ORDER DENYING POLITO’S
MOTIONS
[Dkt. #s 28, 31, 35, 36, 47, 48, 55, 56,
60, 61, 62 63, 65 and 84]

SKAMANIA COUNTY, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on 14 Motions filed by Plaintiff Polito in the past two

15 months: a Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #31]; of the Court’s Order [Dkt. #30] dismissing
16 The Society of Jesus; a Motion for alternative service [Dkt. #35]; a Motion for Amend the
17 complaint [Dkt. #36]; a Motion for “Hearing” of the operative complaint [Dkt. #47]; five
18 Motions for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #s 481, 55, 56, 60 and 61]; and a two-part Motion for a
19 Permanent Injunction, against “The Catholic Church and all its assets and functions that are
20 violating church and state nationwide.” [Dkt. #s 62 and 63] Also pending are a similar motion
21 for a permanent injunction against “Skamania County Criminal Justice System” [Dkt. #65]; a
22
1

Defendants Skamania County, Sgt Johnson and Deputy Helton move for Summary
Judgment in their response [Dkt. #68] to Politio’s Motion for Summary Judgment against them
24 [Dkt. # 48].
23

ORDER - 1

1 Motion for Sanctions against Skamania County for failing to respond to discovery [Dkt. #84];
2 and Polito’s Motion to amend the case schedule [Dkt. #28].
3

The facts are described in the Court’s prior Orders [Dkt. #s 30 and 46]. Polito had a

4 dispute with his tenants, the Millers, over the Millers’ growing marijuana plants on the property,
5 and Polito’s admitted belief that he had no choice but to destroy those plants. He was arrested.
6

Polito sued the Millers and the officers, and—this is where this case differs from “plain

7 vanilla” excessive force cases—the Society of Jesus. He claims, vehemently, that Miller and the
8 police acted on instructions from the Jesuits. The Court dismissed the Society of Jesus on
9 Summary Judgment. Polito seeks Reconsideration of that determination, arguing he has proof
10 that Miller has designed web sites for the Catholic Church. Because this is facially insufficient to
11 impose respondeat superior liability on the Church for Miller’s allegedly tortious conduct (and
12 for the reasons addressed in the prior Order) Polito’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
13

Each of Polito’s lengthy Motions goes back to (literally) ancient history in an effort to

14 paint the Catholic Church as evil and all-controlling, apparently in an effort to make plausible his
15 theory that everything that happened to him is the result of a grand, centuries-old conspiracy now
16 aimed at him. His filings rail against a range of entities and events, including the Illuminati, the
17 Patriot Act, Woodrow Wilson, the Federal Reserve, George Washington and, especially, the
18 Masons and the Catholic Church. They include links to conspiracies about 9-11 being an “inside
19 job,” and claims like the following:
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

[Dkt. #48 at 16-17]. The “timeline” Polito submits in support of his theories begins in 1534. The
sheer volume of the filings, and the depth and breadth of the conspiracy described greatly exceed
anything that this Court has previously seen. But none of it has anything to do with the case, and
permitting Polito to file more of it would be counterproductive—his briefs are already too long
and too repetitive and far too fantastical. Polito’s “theories” are not plausible, and they are not
evidence in support of any of his claims. He has not met his burden on any of his Motions.
All of Polito’s Motions are therefore DENIED. Skamania County’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Dkt. #68] will be addressed in a separate Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 29th day of March, 2016.

12

A

13

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 3