Buzzard v. State of Washington

W.D. Washington

Buzzard v. State of Washington

DecidedFebruary 7, 2022

Docket2:20-cv-01559

StatusUnknown

This text of Buzzard v. State of Washington (Buzzard v. State of Washington) 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

Buzzard v. State of Washington, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 RONALD BUZZARD, JR., 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-01559-RAJ-SKV 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY AS MOOT 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 12 Defendant. 13

14 This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action. The Court screened Plaintiff’s 15 amended complaint in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e), and issued a 16 Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of Count III of Plaintiff’s amended 17 complaint without prejudice as barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Dkt. 33. By 18 order dated October 28, 2021, the Hon. Richard A. Jones adopted the Report and 19 Recommendation issued by the undersigned and dismissed Count III of Plaintiff’s amended 20 complaint without prejudice. Dkt. 39. On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the 21 order dismissing Count III of his amended complaint to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. 22 40. 23 1 Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant motion seeking to stay proceedings in this action 2 pending the outcome of his appeal. Dkt. 54. Shortly after Plaintiff filed this motion, the Ninth 3 Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because “the order challenged in the 4 appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Chacon v.

5 Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (order disposing of fewer than all claims against all 6 parties not immediately appealable unless district court directs entry of judgment pursuant to 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)).” See Dkt. 58. 8 As Plaintiff’s appeal is no longer pending, having been dismissed, it appears Plaintiff’s 9 motion to stay is now moot. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to stay, Dkt. 54, is DENIED as 10 moot. 11 The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the parties and to the Hon. Richard 12 A. Jones. 13 Dated this 7th day of February, 2022. 14 A 15 S. KATE VAUGHAN 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 RONALD BUZZARD, JR., 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-01559-RAJ-SKV 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY AS MOOT 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 12 Defendant. 13

14 This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action. The Court screened Plaintiff’s 15 amended complaint in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e), and issued a 16 Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of Count III of Plaintiff’s amended 17 complaint without prejudice as barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Dkt. 33. By 18 order dated October 28, 2021, the Hon. Richard A. Jones adopted the Report and 19 Recommendation issued by the undersigned and dismissed Count III of Plaintiff’s amended 20 complaint without prejudice. Dkt. 39. On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the 21 order dismissing Count III of his amended complaint to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. 22 40. 23 1 Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant motion seeking to stay proceedings in this action 2 pending the outcome of his appeal. Dkt. 54. Shortly after Plaintiff filed this motion, the Ninth 3 Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because “the order challenged in the 4 appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Chacon v.

5 Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (order disposing of fewer than all claims against all 6 parties not immediately appealable unless district court directs entry of judgment pursuant to 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)).” See Dkt. 58. 8 As Plaintiff’s appeal is no longer pending, having been dismissed, it appears Plaintiff’s 9 motion to stay is now moot. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to stay, Dkt. 54, is DENIED as 10 moot. 11 The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the parties and to the Hon. Richard 12 A. Jones. 13 Dated this 7th day of February, 2022. 14 A 15 S. KATE VAUGHAN 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Buzzard v. State of Washington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buzzard-v-state-of-washington-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack