Harvey v. Means

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DALE HARVEY, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-1712 8 Petitioner, ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S 9 MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE v. 10 GARANN ROSE MEANS, 11 Respondent. 12 13 On December 13, 2023, Respondent Garann Rose Means moved to continue 14 the evidentiary hearing scheduled for December 19, 2023. Dkt. No. 40. Unless the 15 parties stipulate, a motion for relief from a deadline must be noted for consideration 16 no earlier than the second Friday after filing the motion. LCR 7(d)(2). So under the 17 rules, Means’s motion would not become ripe for consideration before the 18 evidentiary hearing. However, in the interest of justice and to promote judicial 19 economy, the Court uses its inherent authority to manage its docket and will 20 consider argument on Means’s motion at the December 19, 2023, hearing. Dietz v. 21 Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016) (District courts have “the inherent authority to 22 23 1 manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and 2 expedient resolution of cases.”).

3 The Court will consider arguments from Means and Harvey about Means’s 4 motion to continue the evidentiary hearing, Dkt. No. 40, at the hearing on 5 December 19, 2023. Harvey, however, may submit a written response to Means’s 6 motion before the hearing. 7 If the Court grants Means’s motion, it will conduct the hearing as a status 8 conference to set case scheduling deadlines. If the Court denies Means’s motion, it

9 will conduct the evidentiary hearing as scheduled. 10 The United States Marshals Service personally served Means with process on 11 December 6, 2023. Dkt. No. 42 at 2. Because Means agreed to receive notice of 12 electronic filings via email, future service of pleadings and other papers through 13 CM/ECF will suffice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). 14 Dated this 14th day of December, 2023. 15 A 16 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 17

19 20 21 22 23