Harris v. Am. Behavioral Health Sys.

Full title: CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM HARRIS, Plaintiff(s), v. AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH…

Court: United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Dec 12, 2023

No. C23-0989-KKE (W.D. Wash. Dec. 12, 2023)

Opinion

C23-0989-KKE

12-12-2023

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM HARRIS, Plaintiff(s), v. AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendant(s).

KYMBERLY K. EVANSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND CLARIFICATION

KYMBERLY K. EVANSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on multiple motions filed by Plaintiff Christopher William Harris, proceeding pro se, requesting discovery, the entry of summary judgment, and clarification of a prior court order. Dkt. Nos. 23, 27-29.

Other motions are pending in this case as well, specifically Defendants' motion to dismiss, Harris's motions to amend his complaint, Harris's motion to transfer venue, and Harris's motion for notification. See Dkt. Nos. 25, 38-41.

Discovery has not yet commenced in this action in light of the pending motion to dismiss (see Dkt. No. 34 ¶ 3), and the Court finds that Harris's motion requesting discovery is premature until the motion to dismiss has been resolved. The pending motion to dismiss and motions to amend the complaint also render Harris's motions for summary judgment premature at this time. Harris's motions seeking discovery and summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 23, 27, 29) are therefore DENIED without prejudice, and may be re-filed after the Court resolves the pending motions related to the sufficiency of Harris's complaint. See, e.g., White v. Sanchez, No. CV 21-04066GW (DFM), 2023 WL 4290386, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2023) (“Summary judgment is generally not appropriate until the parties have had an opportunity to pursue discovery. The Court will not issue a case management and scheduling order regarding discovery in this case unless Plaintiff's complaint survives a motion to dismiss.”).

The Court GRANTS Harris's motion for clarification (Dkt. No. 28), to clarify that the Court's prior order (Dkt. No. 24) referenced facts alleged in Harris's statement of his claim. See Dkt. No. 7 at 8-9 (Harris's complaint stating that the allegedly unlawful disclosure of his medical information was used against him in open court in a criminal proceeding).