Bianchi v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 32 Motion for Order to Show Cause, signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa L Fricke.(CMG)(cc mailed to Plaintiff)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 4 5 6 RONALD J. BIANCHI, Case No. 3:16-cv-05390-BHS-TLF 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al, Defendants. 11 This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ motion to show cause why this matter 12 should not be stayed pending resolution of certain criminal proceedings concerning plaintiff in 13 Clark County, Washington. Dkt. 32. In addition to the stay, defendants further request that 14 plaintiff, who is not currently in DOC custody, file a status report if he has not been transferred 15 back to DOC custody within 90 days of the filing of their motion. Id. at p. 1. 16 On February 22, 2017, the Washington State Court of Appeals granted a state personal 17 restraint petition plaintiff filed, vacating three of his criminal convictions. Dkt. 33, Exhibit 1. The 18 Court of Appeals issued its mandate on August 9, 2017. Id., Exhibit 3. On August 17, 2017, the 19 Clark County Superior Court issued an order transferring plaintiff to the Clark County Jail “for 20 withdrawal of guilty plea and resentencing pursuant to the mandate. Id., Exhibit 4. On August ” 21 21, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, advising the Court that he was going to be 22 transferred to the Clark County Jail. Dkt. 31. 23 Defendants argue a stay is appropriate here, because it is unknown how long plaintiff will 24 25 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE - 1 1 remain at the Clark County Jail, and it is possible he will never return to DOC custody. Plaintiff 2 opposes defendants’ request, arguing a stay is inappropriate, given that defendants’ motion for 3 summary judgment has been fully briefed, and the parties are merely waiting for the Court’s 4 ruling on the matter. The undersigned agrees that given that there is nothing more for the parties 5 to do pending resolution of the summary judgment motion, there is no need to impose a stay of 6 proceedings, and therefore the Court 7 8 9 Accordingly, defendants’ motion to show cause, Dkt. 32, is DENIED. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants. Dated this 1st day of December, 2017. 10 11 A 12 13 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE - 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?