Johnson v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corporation

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 BRENDA M. JOHNSON, 9

Plaintiff, 10 Case No. 19-cv-00337-RAJ v. 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION 12 CONSULTANTS CORPORATION and 13 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 14 Defendants. 15

16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion and objections to the Court’s 18 orders dismissing the action and denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (“Motion”). 19 Dkt. # 36. For the same reasons set forth in the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion 20 for reconsideration, the Court DENIES the Motion. 21 The court directs Plaintiff not to file any further papers in C19-00377RAJ; and 22 further directs the clerk not to accept any future filings from Plaintiff in the above- 23 captioned matter, exclusive of an amended complaint. See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 24 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that in dealing with litigants, the federal courts possess 25 inherent power to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored 26 restrictions under the appropriate circumstances). If Plaintiff fails to file an amended 27 complaint that states a cognizable claim for relief, the Court will dismiss the action with prejudice. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) 1 (“futility of amendment” justifies denial of leave to amend). 2 3 DATED this 4th day of October, 2019. 4 A 5 6 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27