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

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 various motions filed by Plaintiff in this matter. 18 Dkt. ## 38, 40, 41, 42, 43. For the reasons below, the Court STRIKES the motions and 19 DISMISSES the action with prejudice. 20 On October 4, 2019, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff not to file any 21 further papers in this action except for an amended complaint. Dkt. # 39; see DeLong v. 22 Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that in dealing with litigants, the 23 federal courts possess inherent power to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by 24 imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances). In that same 25 order, the Court also made clear that if Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint stating 26 a cognizable claim for relief, the Court would dismiss the action with prejudice. Dkt. # 39. 27 Instead of heeding the Court’s instructions, Plaintiff continues to file numerous motions and objections, all of which are extremely difficult to follow. See, e.g., Dkt. ## 40-43. 1 When ordering a dismissal, the district court must weigh these factors: (1) the 2 public’s interest in expeditious resolution to litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 3 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition 4 of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic measures. Henderson v. 5 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Both the public interest in expeditious 6 resolution and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal here. The 7 Court’s resources are limited and are best spent on cases with a strong chance of resulting 8 in relief. Based on Plaintiff’s complaint and her submissions to the Court, there is no 9 discernable merit to her claim. Furthermore, there is also no risk of prejudice to Defendants 10 who have not yet been properly served. And while the Court has considered less drastic 11 measures, including limiting submissions to streamline resolution, Plaintiff has failed to 12 comply with Court instruction. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the action with 13 prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to STRIKE the pending motions, enter judgment, and 14 close the action. 15 16 DATED this 24th day of October, 2019. 17 A 18 19 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 20 United States District Judge 21

22 23 24

26 27