Harris v. Combs

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM HARRIS, CASE NO. C23-0988-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF 10 LISA COMBS, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to add a defendant (Dkt. No 16), 13 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20), and Plaintiff’s motions requesting that the 14 Court initiate an investigation of his claims (Dkt. Nos. 23 & 24). 15 Plaintiff’s motion to add a defendant (Dkt. No. 16) is DENIED because it is duplicative of 16 a subsequent motion (Dkt. No. 21) requesting the same relief. 17 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED without prejudice as 18 premature at this early point in the proceeding, where there are multiple pending motions to amend 19 the complaint. See, e.g., White v. Sanchez, No. CV 21-04066-GW (DFM), 2023 WL 4290386, at 20 *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2023) (“Summary judgment is generally not appropriate until the parties 21 have had an opportunity to pursue discovery.”). 22 Plaintiff’s motions for investigation (Dkt. Nos. 23 & 24) are DENIED because the Court 23 is aware of no authority supporting this form of relief. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Mosqudea, No. ED 24 1 CV 21-01741-FWS (DFM), 2022 WL 18396425, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2022) (denying 2 plaintiff’s motion for investigation because he “has not identified, and the Court is unaware of, 3 any Congressional authority permitting the Court to pay for an investigator for him in this civil

4 action”). 5 Dated this 13th day of December, 2023. 6 A 7 Kymberly K. Evanson 8 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24