From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Urrieta v. City of Fircrest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Feb 22, 2016
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05245RJB (W.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2016)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05245RJB

02-22-2016

MANUEL URRIETA, an individual,, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FIRCREST, a municipal corporation; CHRIS ROBERTS, an individual, Defendant.


ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL OF CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

This matter comes before the court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 26. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. The Court has considered the motion and the remainder of the file herein.

Defendants seek dismissal (1) as a matter of law, on the basis that Officer Chris Roberts is entitled to qualified immunity; (2) as a sanction for failure to attend a deposition, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d); and (3) for failure to prosecute, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, apparently failed to update his mailing address and to attend his deposition. Dkt. 26. He was previously incarcerated at Washington Corrections Center until December 5, 2015, when he was released. Dkt. 25, at 6. Upon release, Plaintiff failed to update his mailing address. Id. at 6-7. On December 7, 2015, a copy of a subpoena was sent to Plaintiff at his Washington Corrections Center address, but was later returned as undeliverable. Id. Defendants also served a notice of deposition on Plaintiff at the same address, which was returned as undeliverable. Id. Plaintiff did not attend the deposition noted by Defendants for December 28, 2015. Id.

On the record presented, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff is aware of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, because Plaintiff's lack of response and failure to attend the deposition can be traced to an incorrect mailing address. While Plaintiff has the duty to timely update his mailing address, his circumstances may make that difficult. The Court cannot in good conscience adjudicate the merits of the case, so the motion for summary judgment should be denied. The Court also lacks sufficient information to dismiss the case for Plaintiff's failure to appear for a deposition. However, given Plaintiff's general lack of responsiveness, dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate.

THEREFORE, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 26) should be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants' request to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d) is DENIED. Defendants' request to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) is GRANTED. This case is HEREBY DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2016.

/s/_________

ROBERT J. BRYAN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Urrieta v. City of Fircrest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Feb 22, 2016
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05245RJB (W.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2016)
Case details for

Urrieta v. City of Fircrest

Case Details

Full title:MANUEL URRIETA, an individual,, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FIRCREST, a…

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

Date published: Feb 22, 2016

Citations

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05245RJB (W.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2016)