Beaumann v. Securus Technologies Inc

W.D. Washington

Beaumann v. Securus Technologies Inc

DecidedAugust 11, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00147

StatusUnknown

This text of Beaumann v. Securus Technologies Inc (Beaumann v. Securus Technologies Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beaumann v. Securus Technologies Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 HAEDYN-KHRIS RAQUEL BEAUMANN, Case No. 2:22-cv-0147-BHS-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 8 SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES INC, 9 Defendant. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for extension of time. 12 Dkt. 16. Plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to the Court’s Order to Show 13 Cause. Dkt. 16. Plaintiff states that an extension of time is necessary because plaintiff 14 has limited access to the law library due to the COVID-19 restrictions and related 15 staffing shortages; because plaintiff is a pro se litigant the restricted library access is 16 causing delay. Dkt. 16. Plaintiff also requests that the Court resend plaintiff the 17 appropriate form for filing a civil rights complaint. Dkt. 16. 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to grant plaintiff’s motion. 19 Plaintiff shall have until October 7, 2022 to respond to the Court’s Order to Show 20 Cause. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, the complaint must be legibly written or 21 retyped in its entirety and contain the same case number. Any cause of action alleged in 22 the original complaint that is not alleged in the amended complaint is waived. Forsyth v. 23 24 1 Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds, 2 Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). 3 The Court will screen the proposed amended complaint to determine whether it 4 states a claim. If plaintiff fails to respond to the Court’s Order or fails to adequately 5 address the issues raised, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of plaintiff’s

6 complaint. 7 The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff the appropriate forms for filing a 42 U.S.C. 8 § 1983 civil rights complaint and for service, and a copy of this Order. 9 Dated this 11th day of August, 2022. 10 11 a 12 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 HAEDYN-KHRIS RAQUEL BEAUMANN, Case No. 2:22-cv-0147-BHS-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 8 SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES INC, 9 Defendant. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for extension of time. 12 Dkt. 16. Plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to the Court’s Order to Show 13 Cause. Dkt. 16. Plaintiff states that an extension of time is necessary because plaintiff 14 has limited access to the law library due to the COVID-19 restrictions and related 15 staffing shortages; because plaintiff is a pro se litigant the restricted library access is 16 causing delay. Dkt. 16. Plaintiff also requests that the Court resend plaintiff the 17 appropriate form for filing a civil rights complaint. Dkt. 16. 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to grant plaintiff’s motion. 19 Plaintiff shall have until October 7, 2022 to respond to the Court’s Order to Show 20 Cause. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, the complaint must be legibly written or 21 retyped in its entirety and contain the same case number. Any cause of action alleged in 22 the original complaint that is not alleged in the amended complaint is waived. Forsyth v. 23 24 1 Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds, 2 Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). 3 The Court will screen the proposed amended complaint to determine whether it 4 states a claim. If plaintiff fails to respond to the Court’s Order or fails to adequately 5 address the issues raised, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of plaintiff’s

6 complaint. 7 The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff the appropriate forms for filing a 42 U.S.C. 8 § 1983 civil rights complaint and for service, and a copy of this Order. 9 Dated this 11th day of August, 2022. 10 11 a 12 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1997-1 Trade Cases P 71,818, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3865, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6578 Mary Forsyth Marrietta Cade Willie Andrews Mary Lou Buehler Helen Staves Randolph Bratten and Searle Auto Glass, Inc., D/B/A Best Glass Company v. Humana, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Humana Health Insurance of Nevada, Inc., a Nevada Corporation and Does I Through X, Inclusive

114 F.3d 1467 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio

693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Beaumann v. Securus Technologies Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beaumann-v-securus-technologies-inc-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack