Harris v. Pierce County Jail Classification and Administration Office et al

Filing 111

ORDER signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle denying 102 Motion to Amend Judgment.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Ray Harris, Prisoner ID: 271486)(TG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 RAY CHARLES HARRIS, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 v. CASE NO. C16-5044 BHS-DWC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT PIERCE COUNTY JAIL CLASSIFICATION AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ray Charles Harris’s (“Harris”) motion to alter or amend judgment (Dkt. 102). On July 12, 2017, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation by the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and denied Harris leave to amend. Dkt. 101. The Court detailed the extensive process of amendments leading to Harris’s fourth amended complaint and the prospect of allowing Harris a fifth opportunity to amend his complaint. Id. at 3–4. Ultimately, the Court concluded that Harris had “failed to provide any argument or explanation on how further amendment would cure his deficient claims.” Id. at 4. In the ORDER - 1 1 current motion, Harris contends that he now understands what he must do in order to state 2 a valid claim of conspiracy to poison him via his HIV medications. Dkt. 102. Harris’s 3 current contentions do not overcome the Court’s conclusion that granting leave to amend 4 a fifth time would be futile. Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, 726 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 5 2013) (“A district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is ‘particularly broad’ where 6 the plaintiff has previously amended.”). Therefore, the Court DENIES Harris’s motion. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated this 25th day of September, 2017. A 9 10 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?