Hart v. Schneeweiss

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 20, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01193
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JASON MARK HART, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C19-1193-RAJ-BAT 10 v. ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR FILING AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 DAN SCHNEEWEISS, AND EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 14 Plaintiff is currently confined at the Monroe Correctional Complex-SOU (MCC-SOU). 15 Plaintiff’s complaint relates to the alleged involuntary administration of anti-psychotic 16 medication by defendants Dan Schneeweiss and Calvin Cogburn during early 2018 and the 17 resulting violations of plaintiff’s due process and Eighth Amendment rights. Dkt. 4. 18 On February 5, 2020, plaintiff filed a separate action alleging the same defendants 19 violated his constitutional rights by involuntarily administering anti-psychotic medication to him 20 during early 2018. See Hart v. Schneeweiss, 20-cv-180-RSM-BAT, at Dkt. 1. By order dated 21 February 14, 2020, Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in that action as 22 duplicative of this action. See id. at Dkt. 4. In that order the Court noted that “[t]hough the 23 complaint here presents some additional facts and allegations, they are all related to the alleged 1 involuntary administration of anti-psychotic medication during early 2018 and the resulting 2 violations of plaintiff’s due process and Eighth Amendment rights.” Id. The Court further found 3 that: 4 Given that the acts plaintiff alleges herein arise from the same subject matter alleged in plaintiff’s first complaint (C19-1193-RAJ-BAT), the 5 instant action is duplicative and is dismissed without prejudice. See Adams v. California Department of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 6 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court against the same defendant.”). Plaintiff will not be prejudiced 7 because he will be able to allege the acts asserted herein, in the complaint pending before Judge Jones, in case C19-1193-RAJ-BAT. Plaintiff 8 should understand that this will require him to amend the action before Judge Jones and to add the allegations contained in the instant complaint. 9 Id. 10 In light of Judge Martinez’s order, the Court hereby orders that if plaintiff intends to file 11 an amended complaint to include the additional allegations raised in the dismissed complaint 12 (Hart v. Schneeweiss, 20-cv-180-RSM-BAT), he must do so on or before March 4, 2020. The 13 Court also hereby amends the pretrial scheduling order and extends the deadline for dispositive 14 motions to March 11, 2020. 15 DATED this 19th day of February, 2020. 16 A 17

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23