From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Casterlow-Bey v. Pierce Cnty. Sheriff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Jul 3, 2018
Case No. C17-5587 BHS-TLF (W.D. Wash. Jul. 3, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. C17-5587 BHS-TLF

07-03-2018

GARY CASTERLOW-BEY, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIIKE, PERMITTING ADDITIONAL REPLIES BY DEFENDANTS AND RE-NOTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

The Court has received plaintiff's response to defendants' motions to dismiss, Dkt. 65, and the Nurse Defendants' motion to strike the response, Dkt. 67.

Plaintiff's response was not timely filed. Pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3), plaintiff's opposition was due on June 18, 2018, the Monday before the June 22 noting date of defendants' motions; however, because plaintiff filed the response by mail, he was required to mail it on or before Friday, June 15. Id. Instead, the response, which is dated June 19, 2018, was received by the court on June 25, 2018. Dkt. 65. The Nurse Defendants seek to strike the response due to its untimeliness. Dkt. 67.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. Although that means that plaintiff's pleadings are to be construed liberally, "[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants." King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds Lacy v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). However, courts have "a duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lost their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim due to ignorance of technical procedural requirements." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, any prejudice to defendants caused by the tardiness of plaintiff's filing can be cured by permitting them an opportunity to respond to it. The Court therefore ORDERS as follows;

1. The Nurse Defendants' motion to strike is DENIED

2. All defendants may reply to plaintiff's response no later than July 20, 2018; and

3. Defendants' motions to dismiss are RE-NOTED for July 20, 2018.

Dated this 3rd day of July, 2018.

/s/_________

Theresa L. Fricke

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Casterlow-Bey v. Pierce Cnty. Sheriff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Jul 3, 2018
Case No. C17-5587 BHS-TLF (W.D. Wash. Jul. 3, 2018)
Case details for

Casterlow-Bey v. Pierce Cnty. Sheriff

Case Details

Full title:GARY CASTERLOW-BEY, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Jul 3, 2018

Citations

Case No. C17-5587 BHS-TLF (W.D. Wash. Jul. 3, 2018)