Hayes v. State of Washington, Department of Corrections et al

Filing 143

ORDER that Defendants Tuan Duong, Amy Reyes, Sara Smith, Department of Corrections, and Elizabeth Suiter file and serve their answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint 140 or a motion permitted under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on or before 5/19/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Donald Hayes, Prisoner ID: 766385)(CMG)

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

8
9
10

DONALD C HAYES,
Plaintiff,

11

13
14

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

ORDER

v.

12

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05095-BHS-DWC

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

17 States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. On March 16, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff
18 Donald C. Hayes to file a fourth amended complaint to correct deficiencies in his Third
19 Amended Complaint. See Dkt. 137. In the Order, the Court stated:
20
21

Upon receipt of the fourth amended complaint, the Court will screen the pleading
and determine if Plaintiff has cured the deficiencies identified in this order.
Defendants shall not file a response to the fourth amended complaint until so
ordered by this Court.

22
Id. at p. 3.
23
24

ORDER - 1

1

On April 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Fourth Amended Complaint. Dkt. 140. In the Fourth

2 Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims against Defendants Department of Corrections,
3 Elizabeth Suiter, Amy Reyes, Sara Smith, and Tuan Duong. See id. The Court has screened the
4 Fourth Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and directs these five Defendants to file
5 and serve an answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint or a motion permitted under Rule 12 of
6 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on or before May 19, 2017. 1
7

Dated this 19th day of April, 2017.

A

8
9

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

1
While Plaintiff corrected some deficiencies found in the Third Amended Complaint, the Court notes
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint may still suffer from deficiencies. For example, the claims alleged against
Defendant Suiter appear to be barred by the statute of limitations. See Dkt. 13, 140. However, as Defendants have
been served in this case, the Court declines to dismiss any claims at this time and directs Defendants to raise any
defenses in responsive pleadings.

ORDER - 2