Scott v. Van Hook

Filing 46

ORDER by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel Denying Plaintiff's 36 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; Plaintiff's 42 Motion to Conduct Deposition; and Plaintiff's 41 Request for Sanctions. (GMR- cc: pltf)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 RICHARD ROY SCOTT, 11 Plaintiff, 13 VAN HOOK, Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER v. 12 CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05785-RBL-DWC The District Court referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff Richard Roy Scott, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), initiated this action on September 6, 2016. See Dkt. 1. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s “Mt to conduct Discovery Mt for Expert Funding Mt for Special Master or Standby Lawyer Request for Status Conference Mt to Consolidate (sic)” (“Motion for Miscellaneous Relief”), “Motion for Leave to conduct a non-stenographic Depositions of defendant Hook and/or Talbert (sic)” (“Motion to Conduct Deposition”), and a request for sanctions. Dkt. 36, 41, 42. 23 24 ORDER - 1 1 I. 2 In the Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Plaintiff (1) requests a telephonic status Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Dkt. 36) 3 conference and (2) moves to consolidate his case with two other cases presently pending in this 4 Court. Dkt. 36. 5 First, Plaintiff states he would like a status conference to determine the status of his 6 physical condition and because he may be unable to proceed with this case without standby 7 counsel. Id. at p. 2. Plaintiff has not explained how a status conference will help determine the 8 status of his physical condition. Further, Plaintiff is actively filing motions and documents in this 9 case and does not appear to be unable to litigate this case due to his health. Plaintiff was also 10 provided with an opportunity to be represented by Attorney Casey Arbenz on the contaminated 11 water claims raised in the Complaint, but Plaintiff declined Mr. Arbenz’s assistance. See Dkt. 11, 12 17. Plaintiff has not shown “exceptional circumstances” exist in this case which warrant the 13 Court providing additional opportunities for court-appointed counsel. See Rand v. Roland, 14 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 15 Therefore, the Court does not find a status conference is necessary at this time. 16 Second, Plaintiff moves to consolidate his case with cases filed by Special Commitment 17 Center residents, Bettys and Urlacker. See Dkt. 36, pp. 2-3. Plaintiff also references other cases 18 which raise similar issues to those raised in his case. See id. (referencing cases which challenge 19 exposure to contaminated potable water and environmental tobacco smoke). Under Local Rule 20 42(b), “[p]rior to filing a motion to consolidate, the parties must meet and confer and attempt to 21 reach an agreement” regarding consolidation. Here, Plaintiff has not shown he met and conferred 22 with Defendant regarding consolidation. See Dkt. 36. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to consolidate 23 is denied. 24 ORDER - 2 1 In the caption of the Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Plaintiff also states he is moving to 2 conduct discovery and for expert funding and the appointment of a special master or standby 3 lawyer. See Dkt. 36, p. 1. Plaintiff, however, fails to provide any explanation regarding the 4 requested relief. Plaintiff must provide an adequate explanation for the relief he seeks and must 5 provide sufficient factual information for the Court to consider his requests. As Plaintiff has not 6 provided any facts regarding his requests to conduct discovery and for expert funding and the 7 appointment of a special master or standby lawyer, the Court declines to consider the requested 8 relief. Plaintiff may file new motions. Each request for relief should be filed in a separate motion 9 and shall adequately explain the relief requested and the facts supporting the relief. 10 For the above stated reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Dkt. 36) is 11 denied. 12 II. 13 On April 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Conduct Deposition, requesting the Motion to Conduct Deposition (Dkt. 42) 14 Court’s permission to depose Defendant and/or his alleged successor, Sjan Talbert. Dkt. 42. 15 Plaintiff is a vexatious litigator. The Court has entered several orders restricting Plaintiff’s ability 16 to file IFP actions in the Western District of Washington. See Dkt. 18-1 – 18-3. Pursuant to the 17 April 2005 Case Management Order, “Plaintiff may not engage in discovery without leave of 18 court. To obtain leave of court he must submit written discovery to the court for prior approval.” 19 See Dkt. 18-2, p. 4. Plaintiff has not submitted written deposition questions or provided any 20 information regarding the information he intends to discover during the proposed deposition(s). 21 See Dkt. 42. It is also not clear why Plaintiff would need to depose non-party Mr. Talbert. As 22 Plaintiff has not provided adequate information for the Court to determine if deposing Defendant 23 24 ORDER - 3 1 and/or Mr. Talbert is necessary, Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Deposition is denied without 2 prejudice. 3 III. 4 In Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Request for Sanctions (Dkt. 41) 5 Restraining Order, Plaintiff requests sanctions. See Dkt 41. It is not clear who Plaintiff seeks to 6 have sanctioned. See id. (naming Assistant Attorney General Craig Mingay, the Honorable 7 Karen L. Strombom, and the Honorable Ronald B. Leighton). Further, Plaintiff has not alleged 8 facts which show sanctions are warranted in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (sanctions may be 9 warranted when an attorney or unrepresented party violates Rule 11(b)). Therefore, the Court 10 declines to impose Rule 11 sanctions at this time. 11 Dated this 25th day of April, 2017. A 12 13 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER - 4

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?