Collett v. Mason County

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MATHEW COLLETT, CASE NO. 3:23-CV-5654-TMC-DWC 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING COUNTY 12 DEFENDANTS LEAVE TO RESPOND MASON COUNTY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate 16 Judge David W. Christel. This matter is before the Court on its inherent power to manage 17 proceedings “so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Ready Transp., 18 Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 19 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)). 20 The defendants in this case are organized into two groups with each group represented by 21 different counsel. The first is comprised of individuals employed by Mason County and the 22 county itself (hereinafter “County Defendants”). The second includes a private food service 23 24 1 provider and vendor known as Summit Foods and the company’s head cook assigned to Mason 2 County Jail (hereinafter “SJS Defendants”). 3 On January 5, 2024, SJS Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 87. 4 Upon review, it appears SJS Defendants take a position in their motion that is potentially averse

5 to County Defendants. More specifically, SJS Defendants argue the County is responsible for 6 making all relevant decisions regarding religious meal accommodations. Id. at 2–4. The time for 7 responding to the summary judgment motion has now passed with no response filed by County 8 Defendants. 9 Without a response from County Defendants, the Court is unable to discern whether they 10 agree with SJS Defendants’ representation about the relative responsibilities of Mason County 11 and Summit Foods. Therefore, to ensure all parties have ample opportunity to develop the record 12 on this point, the Court grants County Defendants leave to respond, either in opposition or in 13 support, to SJS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.1 If they so desire, County 14 Defendants must respond to the motion by February 12, 2024. The reply from SJS Defendants on

15 its summary judgment motion (including argument regarding any response filed by County 16 Defendants) is extended to February 16, 2024. The Clerk is directed to re-note the summary 17 judgment motion (Dkt. 87) for consideration on February 16, 2024. 18 Dated this 31st day of January, 2024. 19 A 20 David W. Christel Chief United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 1 Plaintiff has already responded in opposition to SJS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkts. 92, 24 93. As such, nothing in this order should be read as granting him leave to file further responses to that motion.