Crews v. Jackson et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting Defendants' 23 Motion to Stay. The stay shall remain in effect until further order of the Court. The Clerk is directed to statistically close this case at the present time. Signed by Hon. S. Kate Vaughan. (cc: Plaintiff via USPS) (MJV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

BRANDON CREWS,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

Case No. C23-6145-TSZ-SKV
ORDER STAYING ACTION

v.
PATTY JACKSON, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a

16

Motion to Stay. Dkt. 23.1 As discussed in that motion, the instant action is one of a number of

17

cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the

18

plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case,

19
20
21
22
23

1

Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ motion. However, it is not clear whether Plaintiff
received notice of the motion given that two days prior to the filing of the motion and on two subsequent
occasions mail delivered to Plaintiff has been returned to the Court as undeliverable. See Dkt. 22
(January 21, 2025), Dkt. 25 (February 5, 2025) & Dkt. 27 (March 3, 2025). This matter may, as such,
soon be subject to dismissal pursuant to Local Civil Rule 41(b)(2) (“If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff
by the clerk is returned by the Postal Service, or if email is returned by the internet service provider, and
if such plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties within 60 days thereafter of his or her current
mailing or email address, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.”)

ORDER STAYING ACTION - 1

1

Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class

2

action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief.

3

Plaintiff here is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on

4

whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of

5

2025 at the earliest.

6

Regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of

7

Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this

8

case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely

9

to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It

10

is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case, rather than in each of

11

the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action.

12

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

13

(1)

Defendants’ Motion to Stay, Dkt. 23, is GRANTED, and the instant action is

14

STAYED. The stay shall remain in effect until further order of the Court. The Clerk is directed

15

to statistically close this case at the present time.
(2)

16

The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and

17

documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in

18

this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of

19

an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in

20

Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff’s deposition be taken as a

21

part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action.
(3)

22
23

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable

///

ORDER STAYING ACTION - 2

1
2

Thomas S. Zilly.
Dated this 7th day of March, 2025.

3

A

4
5

S. KATE VAUGHAN
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER STAYING ACTION - 3