Fouts v. Houlton

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CASE NO. 3:23-CV-5594-RAJ-DWC Plaintiff, v. ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MOTION FOR DIANE HOULTON, et al., SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants.

This prisoner civil rights case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. On February 8, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. Dkt. 46. Though the motion is styled as one for summary judgment, the arguments raised therein focus solely on the sufficiency of the pleadings. See id. Additionally, Defendants submit no evidence in support of their motion and maintain this case is resolvable without discovery. Id.; see also Dkts. 51, 52 (arguing discovery would be futile). Upon review, it appears Defendants’ motion is better reviewed as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which may be filed “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Consistent with the arguments Defendants raise, motions for judgment on the pleadings may be predicated on either (1) the lack of a cognizable legal theory, or (2) insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In reviewing such motions, the Court considers only the pleadings, documents incorporated by reference into the complaint, and information

“contained in materials of which [it] may take judicial notice.” Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 n.18 (9th Cir. 1999); see United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to show cause why their motion for summary judgment should not be construed as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. If Defendants fail to show cause on or before February 26, 2024, the Court will treat the motion as one submitted for judgment on the pleadings. Dated this 23rd day of February, 2024. A David W. Christel Chief United States Magistrate Judge