Capstick v. The Bank of New York Mellon

W.D. Washington

Capstick v. The Bank of New York Mellon

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided June 26, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-00936·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

WARD K. CAPSTICK, CASE NO. C23-0936JLR Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al., Defendants. The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable James L. Robart: The court is in receipt of the pleading filed by pro se Plaintiff Ward K. Capstick entitled “emergency ex-parte temporary restraining order.” (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) (capitalization omitted).) Because the substance of this pleading is similar to that of a complaint (see generally id.), and because Mr. Capstick used this pleading to commence his case (see generally Dkt.), the court construes the pleading as Mr. Capstick’s complaint. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the court liberally construes a pro se litigant’s pleadings).

If Mr. Capstick seeks a temporary restraining order, he must file a separate motion requesting that relief. Mr. Capstick’s motion, if any, shall comply with the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b). See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that pro se litigants must follow same rules of procedure that govern other litigants), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). In

addition, Mr. Capstick must file a proposed order with his motion that complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1) (setting forth the requirements for an order granting injunctive relief) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b)(4) (requiring that the movant “include a proposed order specifically setting forth the relief requested and describing in reasonable detail the act or acts to be restrained or required”).

See also Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(1) (noting that a party must file a proposed order in conjunction with a motion). Filed and entered this 26th day of June, 2023. RAVI SUBRAMANIAN Clerk of Court s/ Ashleigh Drecktrah Deputy Clerk

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

WARD K. CAPSTICK, CASE NO. C23-0936JLR Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al., Defendants. The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable James L. Robart: The court is in receipt of the pleading filed by pro se Plaintiff Ward K. Capstick entitled “emergency ex-parte temporary restraining order.” (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) (capitalization omitted).) Because the substance of this pleading is similar to that of a complaint (see generally id.), and because Mr. Capstick used this pleading to commence his case (see generally Dkt.), the court construes the pleading as Mr. Capstick’s complaint. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the court liberally construes a pro se litigant’s pleadings).

If Mr. Capstick seeks a temporary restraining order, he must file a separate motion requesting that relief. Mr. Capstick’s motion, if any, shall comply with the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b). See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that pro se litigants must follow same rules of procedure that govern other litigants), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). In

addition, Mr. Capstick must file a proposed order with his motion that complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1) (setting forth the requirements for an order granting injunctive relief) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b)(4) (requiring that the movant “include a proposed order specifically setting forth the relief requested and describing in reasonable detail the act or acts to be restrained or required”).

See also Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(1) (noting that a party must file a proposed order in conjunction with a motion). Filed and entered this 26th day of June, 2023. RAVI SUBRAMANIAN Clerk of Court s/ Ashleigh Drecktrah Deputy Clerk

Capstick v. The Bank of New York Mellon, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Capstick v. The Bank of New York Mellon (Capstick v. The Bank of New York Mellon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related