McDonald v. Lauren et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 73 Motion for Immediate Ruling, signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Steven McDonald, Prisoner ID: 703852)(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 STEVEN DARBY MCDONALD, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05013-RBLDWC v. KENNETH LAUREN, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RULING Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff Steven Darby McDonald, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Immediate Ruling on Request for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”). Dkt. 73. Plaintiff asks the Court to immediately rule on his Motion for Preliminary Injunction because the Court renoted that motion to give the Chief Judge time to rule on two other pending motions, and the Chief Judge has now ruled on those motions. Local Civil Rule 7 states “[a]ll motions will be decided as soon as practicable, and normally within thirty days following the noting date.” LCR 7(b)(5). Further, “[t]he [C]ourt may renote a pending motion to ensure 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RULING - 1 1 compliance with applicable court rules or for other reasons.” LCR 7(l). Parties should only 2 contact the Court regarding a decision on a motion “if a decision on the motion has not been 3 received within forty-five days of the noting date.” LCR 7(b)(5). 4 Here, the Court is not acting inappropriately by considering Plaintiff’s Motion for 5 Preliminary Injunction based on its noting date. The Court’s decision is not overdue. The Court 6 renoted the Motion for Preliminary Injunction to December 1, 2017. Though the Chief Judge has 7 rendered his decision on two other pending motions, the noting date has not changed. Plaintiff 8 should expect a decision within thirty days from the noting date and the Court has not acted 9 improperly by waiting to issue a decision until the Court has considered all allegations in the 10 motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 73) is denied. 11 Dated this 20th day of November, 2017. A 12 13 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RULING - 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?