Moseley v. Department of Social and Health Services et al

Filing 49

ORDER granting 48 Agreed Motion to Stay, this case is stayed until 12/14/18, or until plaintiff's condition has improved such that he is capable of meaningfully engaging in litigation. Plaintiff's counsel shall file a status report and if necessary, a motion to extend the stay on or before 11/30/18. **SEE ORDER FOR REMAINING DETAILS**. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 JAMES DALE MOSELEY, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05427-BHS-JRC ORDER GRANTING AGREED STAY v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States 17 Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local 18 Magistrate Judge Rules MJR1, MJR3 and MJR4. 19 Plaintiff James Dale Moseley, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action 20 on June 2, 2017. Dkt. 1. After plaintiff’s amended complaint was served on defendants, Dkts. 10, 21 11, plaintiff retained counsel, Dkt. 24, and plaintiff’s counsel requested leave to file another 22 amended complaint, Dkt. 25. The Court granted plaintiff’s request on November 21, 2017 and 23 docketed plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint. Dkt. 28. 24 ORDER GRANTING AGREED STAY - 1 1 On March 13, 2018, the Court entered an order to show cause, noting that the parties had 2 made no additional filings since plaintiff’s counsel filed the amended complaint and directing the 3 parties to explain why the Court should not recommend dismissal of the case. Dkt. 32. Both 4 parties filed responses, indicating they were experiencing difficulties ensuring all defendants had 5 been properly served and so defendants’ counsel had not yet filed a response to plaintiff’s 6 amended complaint, and plaintiff had not yet moved for default judgment. Dkts. 33, 34. 7 Defendants subsequently filed an answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint, Dkt. 39, and the 8 Court entered a pretrial scheduling order on May 18, 2018, Dkt. 40. 9 Defendants have now filed an agreed motion to stay discovery and trial date. Dkt. 48. 10 They note that plaintiff has been suffering from “substantial decompensation due to his mental 11 illness,” plaintiff’s counsel has been unable to have visitation with plaintiff because of this 12 decompensation, and plaintiff cannot currently be deposed or otherwise participate in the 13 discovery process. Id. Defendants therefore ask that the case be stayed until such a time as 14 plaintiff can again meaningfully engage in litigation. Id. Defendants also note that plaintiff’s 15 counsel “is amenable to providing the Court with status updates every 90 days or as otherwise 16 directed by the Court.” Id., p. 2. 17 Therefore, it is ORDERED: 18 1) This case is stayed until December 14, 2018, or until plaintiff’s conditions has 19 20 improved such that he is capable of meaningfully engaging in litigation. 2) Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a status report and, if necessary, a motion to extend the 21 stay on or before November 30, 2018 – fourteen days before the stay ends. Plaintiff’s 22 counsel’s report shall inform the Court whether plaintiff’s mental state has improved 23 or deteriorated, and, if plaintiff’s mental health has improved, when it is likely that 24 ORDER GRANTING AGREED STAY - 2 1 his mental health will improve to a point where is once again capable of engaging in 2 litigation. 3 4 5 6 7 3) Should plaintiff’s mental health improve sufficiently before December 14, 2018, plaintiff’s counsel is directed to inform the Court and file a motion to lift the stay. 4) The Clerk is directed to note the November 30, 2018 due date on the Court’s calendar. Dated this 11th day of September, 2018. 8 9 10 A 11 J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER GRANTING AGREED STAY - 3

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?