Troupe v. Woods et al

Filing 77

ORDER that Plaintiff's 65 First Motion to Clarify, 69 Motion for Extension of Time, 70 Second Motion to Clarify and to Compel, and 72 Motion to Stay are denied. The Court notes dispositive motions must be filed by 11/7/16; and Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is due on or before 11/15/16. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**4 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(David Troupe, Prisoner ID: 765714)(CMG)

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

7
8
9

DAVID TROUPE,
Plaintiff,

10

12

EDWARD WOODS, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

ORDER

v.

11

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05077-RBL-DWC

The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to United

15 States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff David Troupe, proceeding pro se and in
16 forma pauperis, initiated this civil rights action on February 1, 2016. Dkt. 1. Presently pending
17 before the Court is Plaintiff’s September 22, 2016 Motion to Clarify (“First Motion to Clarify”),
18 Motion to Appeal and Extend all Deadlines (“Motion for Extension”), October 13, 2016 Motion
19 to Clarify and Compel (“Second Motion to Clarify”), and Motion to Stay Summary Judgment
20 (“Motion to Stay”) Dkt. 65. 1 After review of the record, the First Motion to Clarify, the Second
21 Motion to Clarify, the Motion for Extension, and the Motion to Stay are denied.
22
23
1

Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, which, pursuant to this

24 Order, is ready for the Court’s consideration on November 18, 2016.

ORDER - 1

1

I.

2

On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed the First Motion to Clarify requesting the Court

First Motion to Clarify (Dkt. 65)

3 clarify the following questions: “(1) Is it okay for Troupe to hand his legal mail e-filings to any
4 DOC staff?; (2) Is it required to have the approved/designated/trained staff pick up, scan, return
5 e-filings?; [and] (3) Are e-filings considered legal mail?” Dkt. 65. The Court finds Plaintiff is
6 asking for clarification of prison policies. As Plaintiff does not seek clarification of a Court order
7 issued in this case, his First Motion to Clarify is denied. See Bordallo v. Reyes, 763 F.2d 1098,
8 1102 (9th Cir. 1985) (a request to clarify “invite[s] interpretation [of an order], which trial courts
9 are often asked to supply, for the guidance of the parties”); Turner v. Akins, 992 F.2d 1220 (9th
10 Cir. 1993) (“Prison officials have been granted wide latitude in the running of prisons[.]”).
11

II.

12

In the Motion for Extension, Plaintiff requests all deadlines be extended for 90 days or

Motion for Extension (Dkt. 69) and Motion to Stay (Dkt. 72)

13 until he is returned to Stafford Creek Corrections Center (“SCCC”). 2 Dkt. 69. In the Motion to
14 Stay, he requests a stay of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment until he is returned to
15 SCCC. Dkt. 72. Defendants filed a response requesting the Motion for Extension and Motion to
16 Stay be denied. Dkt. 74. As Plaintiff is requesting extensions of time in both the Motion for
17 Extension and the Motion to Stay, the Court will consider these two Motions together.
18

Plaintiff contends he was transferred from SCCC to Washington State Penitentiary

19 (“WSP”) without all his legal documents. He states he was going to be immediately transferred
20 back to SCCC after a court hearing and therefore did not bring his legal documents to WSP. Dkt.
21 69. Plaintiff was not returned to SCCC. Id. Plaintiff requests the extension of time and stay
22 because he does not have his legal documents.
23
2

The Court notes the only deadline is the deadline for filing dispositive motions, which runs on November

24 7, 2016. Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was due October 10, 2016.

ORDER - 2

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may extend a deadline for

2 good cause. The evidence shows Plaintiff’s legal documents were transferred with him from
3 SCCC to WSP. See Dkt. 75-1 (Order from the Eastern District of Washington stating Plaintiff
4 asserted all his legal files had been transferred with him from SCCC to WSP); Dkt. 75-1, Crane
5 Declaration, ¶ 4 (All Plaintiff’s legal property traveled with Plaintiff from SCCC to WSP and
6 none of Plaintiff’s legal property remains at SCCC); Dkt. 75-1, Bradley Declaration, ¶¶ 3-4
7 (Bradley assisted in unloading Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s nine legal boxes upon Plaintiff’s arrival at
8 WSP, and Plaintiff commented to Bradley he did not understand why all his legal documents
9 were traveling with him to WSP). As the reason Plaintiff alleges he needs an extension of time is
10 because his legal documents are at SCCC, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for an
11 extension of time or stay of pending motions until he returns to SCCC. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
12 Motion for Extension and Motion for Stay are denied.
13

As Plaintiff signed –effectively filing – the Motion for Extension prior to the date his

14 response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was due (see Dkt. 64), the Court
15 provides Plaintiff with fourteen days to file a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
16 Judgment. Plaintiff shall have until November 15, 2016 to file a response to Defendants’ Motion
17 for Summary Judgment. Defendants may file a supplemental reply on or before November 18,
18 2016. The Clerk is directed to re-note the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 54) for
19 November 18, 2016.
20

III.

21

Plaintiff filed the Second Motion to Clarify on October 13, 2016. Dkt. 70. In the Second

Second Motion to Clarify (Dkt. 70)

22 Motion to Clarify, Plaintiff requests the Court compel Defendants’ counsel, Timothy Feulner, to
23 resend every document filed in this case to Plaintiff. Dkt. 70. He also asks the Court to clarify the
24

ORDER - 3

1 status and deadlines of the case and send all records filed after April 22, 2016 to Plaintiff. Id.
2 Plaintiff states he cannot get access to the records in this case.
3

On September 27, 2016, the day after Plaintiff was transferred to WSP, the Court

4 received notice of his change of address. Dkt. 66. Mailings sent to Plaintiff have not been
5 returned to the Court. Further, as discussed above, the evidence shows Plaintiff’s legal
6 documents were transferred with Plaintiff to WSP. Plaintiff has failed to provide an adequate
7 reason which would necessitate Defendants or the Court resending all the documents filed in this
8 case. Accordingly, the Second Motion to Clarify is denied. The Court notes dispositive motions
9 must be filed by November 7, 2016 and Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
10 Judgment is due on or before November 15, 2016.
11

Dated this 1st day of November, 2016.

13

A

14

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 4