Ewalan v. Schreiber

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 JOSEPH LOCHUCH EWALAN, Case No. 3:20-cv-05678-JLR-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 8 RELIEF FROM DEADLINES WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF 9 CORRECTIONS, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Court’s 12 rules to meet deadlines/responses. Dkt 41. Defendants have filed a response to the 13 motion and Plaintiff has replied. Dkts. 42, 43. For the reasons stated below, the Court 14 denies the motion without prejudice. 15 Plaintiff has filed a motion “for order of relief to meet deadlines response and 16 answers court rules.” Dkt. 41 at 1. Plaintiff contends that he has difficulty scheduling law 17 library time due to layoffs and restrictions caused by the ongoing Covid 19 pandemic 18 and argues that “20 days and 30 days rule makes it difficult for Plaintiff[ ] to respond to 19 motions and pleadings on time.” Id at 1. Plaintiff lists examples of difficulties he believes 20 he has encountered previously in this litigation.1 But Plaintiff does not identify any 21 22

1 Notably, neither of Plaintiff’s “examples” involved the denial of any relief due to a problem with meeting 23 deadlines. The Clerk of the Court rejected Plaintiff’s attempt to file his discovery requests because such materials may not be filed with the court. Docket Entry dated November 4, 2020; Local Rules, W. D. 24 Wash., LCR 5(d). The Court granted Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s reply to their answer because 1 specific deadline from which he seeks relief and there is currently no pending motion 2 imposing any deadlines. Instead, Plaintiff appears to seek blanket relief from any future 3 deadline. 4 The Court will not grant such sweeping and vague relief from any and all future

5 deadlines. Although courts must construe pleadings of pro se litigants liberally, “[p]ro se 6 litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. 7 Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. 8 Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). 9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion, without prejudice to his ability 10 to file a future request for the extension of an actual pending deadline. If in the future 11 Plaintiff is faced with a particular deadline and needs additional time, he may bring a 12 motion requesting the extension of that specific deadline. 13 Plaintiff is also advised that, with respect to deadlines for filing pleadings, the 14 “prison mailbox rule” applies; that is, documents are considered filed on the date a

15 prisoner “delivered the [document] to prison authorities for forwarding to the [d]istrict 16 [c]ourt.” Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). See also Douglas v. Noelle, 567 17 F.3d 1103, 1108–09 (9th Cir. 2009) (“When a pro se prisoner alleges that he timely 18 complied with a procedural deadline by submitting a document to prison authorities, the 19 district court must either accept that allegation as correct or make a factual finding to the 20 contrary upon a sufficient evidentiary showing by the opposing party.”) Thus, for 21 purposes of determining timeliness, pro se prisoner filings are deemed filed the date the 22 23 no such reply is permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 39, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Plaintiff’s 24 ability to meet any response deadlines played no role in either order. 1 prisoner signs the document and gives it to prison officials for mailing; subsequent 2 delays by the prison library in processing filings will not cause a prisoner’s filing to be 3 deemed untimely. 4 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion, Dkt. 41 is DENIED without

5 prejudice. 6 Dated this 22nd day of December, 2020. 7 8 A 9 Theresa L. Fricke 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24