Humphreys v. Burgher

W.D. Washington

Humphreys v. Burgher

DecidedAugust 5, 2019

Docket3:18-cv-05736

StatusUnknown

This text of Humphreys v. Burgher (Humphreys v. Burgher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Humphreys v. Burgher, (W.D. Wash. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 Scott Wesley Humphreys, 8 CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05736-RJB-JRC Plaintiff, 9 ORDER ON MOTION FOR v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 10 Burgher, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action pursuant to 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for protective order. Dkt. 15 54. Defendants filed a response. Dkt. 55. 16 In the motion, plaintiff states “[t]his motion is pursuant to the equal protection clause of 17 the Fourteenth Amendment.” Dkt. 54 at 1. Plaintiff states that he was threatened with a transfer. 18 It appears that plaintiff is requesting a protective order to prevent defendants from transferring 19 him to another facility. Dkt. 54. Attached to his motion, plaintiff filed grievances related to a 20 disciplinary hearing on June 11, 2019. Dkt. 54 at 3-5. 21 The Court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 22 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the Court may deny or limit 23 discovery “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 24 1 burden or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 192 2 F.R.D. 284, 285–86 (S.D. Cal. 2000). 3 Discovery has not yet started in this case, and currently pending before the Court is 4 defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Dkt. 44. In the motion, plaintiff does not allege any facts

5 which would warrant a protective order. Dkt. 54. There appears to be no relationship between 6 plaintiff’s complaint in this case and his request for protective order. Therefore, at this time, the 7 Court that the motion is premature. 8 The Court also notes that prisoners have no liberty interest in avoiding being transferred 9 to another prison, see Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983), and it appears that the 10 allegations in his motion and attached grievances arose after he filed this lawsuit and are not 11 related to this matter, see Dkt. 21. To the extent that plaintiff attempts to raise a new 12 constitutional claim, plaintiff is advised that if he seeks to raise claims that occurred after he 13 filed this case, he must file a separate complaint. 14 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for protective order (Dkt. 54) is denied without prejudice.

15 Dated this 5th day of August, 2019. 16 A 17 18 J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge 19

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 Scott Wesley Humphreys, 8 CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05736-RJB-JRC Plaintiff, 9 ORDER ON MOTION FOR v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 10 Burgher, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action pursuant to 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for protective order. Dkt. 15 54. Defendants filed a response. Dkt. 55. 16 In the motion, plaintiff states “[t]his motion is pursuant to the equal protection clause of 17 the Fourteenth Amendment.” Dkt. 54 at 1. Plaintiff states that he was threatened with a transfer. 18 It appears that plaintiff is requesting a protective order to prevent defendants from transferring 19 him to another facility. Dkt. 54. Attached to his motion, plaintiff filed grievances related to a 20 disciplinary hearing on June 11, 2019. Dkt. 54 at 3-5. 21 The Court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 22 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the Court may deny or limit 23 discovery “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 24 1 burden or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 192 2 F.R.D. 284, 285–86 (S.D. Cal. 2000). 3 Discovery has not yet started in this case, and currently pending before the Court is 4 defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Dkt. 44. In the motion, plaintiff does not allege any facts

5 which would warrant a protective order. Dkt. 54. There appears to be no relationship between 6 plaintiff’s complaint in this case and his request for protective order. Therefore, at this time, the 7 Court that the motion is premature. 8 The Court also notes that prisoners have no liberty interest in avoiding being transferred 9 to another prison, see Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983), and it appears that the 10 allegations in his motion and attached grievances arose after he filed this lawsuit and are not 11 related to this matter, see Dkt. 21. To the extent that plaintiff attempts to raise a new 12 constitutional claim, plaintiff is advised that if he seeks to raise claims that occurred after he 13 filed this case, he must file a separate complaint. 14 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for protective order (Dkt. 54) is denied without prejudice.

15 Dated this 5th day of August, 2019. 16 A 17 18 J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge 19

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Humphreys v. Burgher, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphreys-v-burgher-wawd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack