McDonald v. Lauren et al

Filing 197

ORDER granting 193 Defendants Motion for Reconsideration; Plaintiff's Motion to Stay 169 is VACATED and that Motion for a Stay is DENIED; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Steven McDonald, Prisoner ID: 703852)(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

STEVEN DARBY MCDONALD,

9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11

KENNETH B LAUREN, et al.,

12

CASE NO. C17-5013 RBL-DWC
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S ORDER

Defendants.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the State Defendants’ Objections [Dkt. # 193] to

15

the Magistrate Judge’s Order [Dkt. # 189] granting Plaintiff McDonald’s “Motion to Stay

16

Proceedings until Resolution of Preliminary Injunction” [Dkt. # 169], pending the Ninth

17

Circuit’s decision on McDonald’s most recent1 appeal [Dkt. # 161]. McDonald’s appeal relates

18

to this Court’s Order [Dkt. # 160] adopting a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. # 156] and

19

denying as moot (but granting leave to immediately re-file) various motions, including

20

McDonald’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. # 99]. For reasons that cannot are not

21

clear, McDonald chose to appeal a third time rather than re-file.

22
23
24

1

This case was also stayed during McDonald’s two prior appeals. When the Ninth Circuit dismissed those appeals,
the Magistrate Judge lifted the stay and issued his R&R on McDonald’s various pending motions, including the
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. This Court adopted that R&R, which McDonald appealed.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER - 1

1

The Magistrate Judge granted McDonald’s Motion to Stay the day after the Ninth Circuit

2

denied the similar Motion to Stay McDonald filed there. [Dkt. # 192]. It is not clear why

3

McDonald wants a stay (or exactly what he wants to stay) but it may relate to the State

4

Defendants’ pending Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 177].

5

The State claims the Magistrate Judge’s ruling is clearly erroneous and contrary to law.

6

See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The State argues that

7

McDonald’s pending appeal relates only to the propriety of the Court’s decision to deny the

8

pending motions, without prejudice, as moot. Accordingly, neither the Magistrate Judge nor this

9

Court has considered or ruled upon the merits of McDonald’s motion for a preliminary

10

injunction (or McDonald’s other motions), and the merits of those motions are therefore not at

11

issue in the Ninth Circuit.

12

Thus, it claims, the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of McDonald’s pending appeal will not

13

impact this Court’s consideration of the merits of either McDonald’s not yet re-filed motion for a

14

preliminary injunction, his other motions, or the State’s own Motion for Summary Judgment2.

15

The State argues that staying the case after the Ninth Circuit already declined to do so

16

undermines (and is inconsistent with) the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

17

McDonald argues that prior delays were caused by this Court’s denying his objections to

18

the Magistrate Judge’s orders, not by his since-dismissed appeals, and he seems to renew his

19

request for the appointment of counsel. He also argues, again, that he has emergent medical

20

needs. But he does not articulate how Staying this case assists him in resolving those needs, or

21

why he chose to appeal the denial without prejudice of his motion for a preliminary injunction,

22
23
24

2
The State’s Motion is partly based on qualified immunity, which, it accurately points out, should be resolved as
early as possible in the litigation. See Hunter v Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991).Waiting for the resolution of another
interlocutory appeal is not “the earliest possible stage of the litigation.”

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER - 2

1

rather than simply and logically re-filing it—particularly where the motion is based on a medical

2

condition he now claims is worse than when he first filed.

3

The Court respectfully disagrees with the Magistrate Judge on the utility of a stay

4

pending the Ninth Circuit’s review of a non-dispositive, and likely non-appealable Order. The

5

Ninth Circuit itself rejected a stay, strongly suggesting that it did not intend for this litigation to

6

await its resolution of McDonald’s third interlocutory appeal.

7

The State’s Objection [Dkt. # 193] is GRANTED. The Court will not Stay this case

8

pending the Ninth Circuit’s review of the prior Order [Dkt. # 160], denying various motions

9

without prejudice to immediately re-file. The Magistrate Judge’s Order [Dkt. # 189] Granting

10

McDonald’s Motion to Stay [Dkt. # 169] is VACATED and that Motion for a Stay is DENIED.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated this 27th day of November, 2018.

13
14

A

15

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER - 3