From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Warner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Jul 12, 2018
CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05615-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash. Jul. 12, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05615-BHS-DWC

07-12-2018

JAMES A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. BERNARD E. WARNER, Defendant.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Noting Date: July 27, 2018

The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff James A. Williams, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action on August 4, 2017. Dkt. 1.

After granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 5), the Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court noted Plaintiff's Complaint was 67 pages long, convoluted, and the Court had trouble gleaning any meaning from it. Dkt. 8. The Court provided Plaintiff until October 27, 2017, to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff subsequently requested an additional sixty days to file his amended Complaint (Dkt. 10), and the Court extended his deadline to January 12, 2018 (Dkt. 11). Plaintiff again moved for an extension of time (Dkt. 13), and the Court extended his deadline once again to March 16, 2018 (Dkt. 15). Plaintiff failed to file an Amended Complaint by that date, and the Court entered a second Order to Show Cause, asking Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not recommend dismissal of his case for failure to obey a court order. Dkt. 18. Plaintiff responded, requesting, once again, additional time to file his Amended Complaint. Dkt. 19. The Court granted an extension, but warned Plaintiff, "[b]ecause this is Plaintiff's third extension of time to file the Amended Complaint and because Plaintiff failed to adhere to the last extension the Court granted, the Court will look extremely disfavorably on any further delay." Dkt. 20, p. 2. The Court gave Plaintiff until June 22, 2018, to file his Amended Complaint. Id. Instead of filing an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a 143 page Motion requesting, again, additional time. Dkt. 21.

The Court entered an Order telling Plaintiff "[it] will not entertain further delay in this case," and denied Plaintiff's fourth Motion for Extension. Dkt. 23, p. 2-3. Because of the timing of the Court's Order, the Court also provided Plaintiff until June 26, 2018, to file his Amended Complaint. Id. Plaintiff has failed to do so.

Plaintiff has been provided three sixty-day extensions to file his Amended Complaint since November of last year. He still has not submitted anything resembling an Amended Complaint and has now twice failed to adhere to deadlines established by this Court. He has been warned that failure to adhere to the deadline would result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed.

Therefore, the Court recommends Plaintiff's action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

The Court further recommends all outstanding motions be denied as moot.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on July 27, 2018, as noted in the caption.

Dated this 12th day of July, 2018.

/s/_________

David W. Christel

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Williams v. Warner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Jul 12, 2018
CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05615-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash. Jul. 12, 2018)
Case details for

Williams v. Warner

Case Details

Full title:JAMES A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. BERNARD E. WARNER, Defendant.

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

Date published: Jul 12, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05615-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash. Jul. 12, 2018)