Lyons v. Pacific County Clerk and Administrator et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 13 Defendant Pacific County's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 14 Defendant Williams' Motion for Joinder; this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 7/17/2017 (DN). (cc to pltf)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

CASE NO. C17-5335RBL

BILLY LYONS,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11

v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

PACIFIC COUNTY CLERK AND
ADMINISTRATOR, et al.,

12
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Pacific County’s Motion to Dismiss
[Dkt #s 13] and Defendant Williams’ Joinder in that Motion [Dkt. #14].
This case is in all material respects identical to a prior case Mr. Lyons filed against these
same parties last year, based on the same 2012 “incident.” That case was dismissed with
prejudice as to Defendants Pacific County and Williams. See Lyons v. Blauvet et al., Cause No
CV16-5256RBL, Dkt. #s 35 (Williams) and 54 (Pacific County)1.

20
21
22
23
24

1
Defendant Blauvet has appeared in both cases, but for some reason has not otherwise pled or defended in either.
Accordingly, the prior case remains pending as against Blauvet (and pre-trial deadlines are fast approaching), and
Lyons’ claims against him in this case survive this Order.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE - 1

1

Undeterred, Lyons simply filed a whole new lawsuit, complaining about the exact same

2

things. Defendants seek dismissal on res judicata and statute of limitations grounds, as well as

3

on the merits.

4
5
6

The Court takes judicial notice of the prior case and all of the filings in it. That case was
frivolous and based in part on suspect, perhaps manufactured, evidence.
This case is even more frivolous—it is barred by the dismissal with prejudice of the prior

7

case, and by the passage of even more time—and it inexplicably continues to rely on the same

8

“evidence.” There is no chance that the second page of the letter Lyons repeatedly offers was

9

written by his former attorney, Defendant Dana Williams. It is gibberish, replete with the same

10

misspellings and grammatical errors that Lyons himself has routinely made in his other filings:

11
12
13

See Dkt. #15, page 8 in this case; Dkt. #17 at Ex. 2 in CV16-5256RBL. There are at least nine

14

such errors in this two-line “excerpt,” and the sentence would not make sense even if those errors

15

were corrected.

16

Lyons’ complaint is based on a case he lost at trial (and failed to appeal) in 2012. Lyons

17

has filed at least three lawsuits since, all complaining about the same innocuous event—the pre-

18

trial administrative re-assignment of his case from one judge to another. It is readily apparent

19

that the first state court judge conditioned his grant of Lyons’ request for a continuance of the

20

then-scheduled 2011 trial date on his payment of terms—the costs incurred by his opponent as

21

the result of the continuance.

22
23

This is not uncommon or untoward. Lyons’ attempt to convince the Court that the
payment was instead some sort of bribe to prevent the re-assignment of the case to some other,

24

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE - 2

1

presumably corrupt or incompetent—but nevertheless sitting—judge is false and frivolous. To

2

the extent it relies on Williams’ “admission” of the same, quoted above, it is also potentially

3

fraudulent.

4

The Motions to Dismiss [Dkt. #s 13 and 14] are GRANTED and Lyons’ claims against

5

the Pacific County Defendants and Defendant Williams are again DISMISSED with prejudice

6

and without leave to amend.

7

Defendant Williams also asks the Court to enter a bar order precluding Lyons from re-

8

filing a similar claim a third (or, in Williams’ case, a fourth) time. For now, the Court will

9

decline to do so. But, FAIR WARNING: if Lyons re-files any case based on the events outlined

10

in this or the prior case(s), the Court will entertain a motion for attorneys’ fees based on Lyons’

11

repeated, vexatious and frivolous filings. It will also permit and encourage the defendants to “get

12

to the bottom” of the authenticity of letter described above, and the full range of possible

13

consequences for submitting falsified evidence will be in play.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 17th day of July, 2017.

17

A

18

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

16

19

20
21
22
23
24

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE - 3